Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;

That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Crime

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his 27-point plan to reduce crime in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I have received a large number of representations and comments on my 27-point plan, including one from the chairman of the Police Federation, who said:
My message to the Home Secretary is what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime.

Mr. Dowd: Will the Home Secretary tell the House why, after almost 15 continuous years of Conservative Government, and within but a few months of his appointment, he felt compelled to introduce a package of such dubious complexity? Does that indicate the indolence and ineptitude of his Tory predecessors or his own desperation in the face of a national problem, which, throughout those 15 years, despite their fatuous pretence to the contrary, the Government have done nothing but exacerbate?

Mr. Howard: It may take me a little time to work out whether "dubious complexity" is an improvement on a "series of gimmicks". The truth of the matter is that, whatever phrase the Opposition attempt to fasten to the package that I announced, and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which implements it, they could not make up their mind what to do about it on Tuesday—they could not say yes and they could not say no. They simply abstained at the end of the day.

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall reading that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that we should not be hesitant to praise the Government when they got things right? Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any sort of praise or representations from the hon. Member for Sedgefield as a result of those points?

Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received no praise, but lots of hesitancy. Hesitancy is the watch word of the Labour party.

Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is no more serious cause of crime than the link between crime and drugs and drug abuse, particularly among young people? Is he aware that the police estimate that, in certain parts of the country, 70 per cent. of crime is linked to drugs, and that last week the Home Office report said that there was an urgent need for a national programme of drugs education and prevention through the country? In those circumstances, why did he take the Tory party to vote against Labour's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which included precisely that, among other things?

Mr. Howard: I certainly agree that there is an important relationship between crime and drugs. We must take the influence of drugs on crime very seriously. That is why the Government have introduced into the national curriculum comprehensive education for children in our schools on the question of drugs.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if a suspect refuses to answer a simple question in a police station, the courts should be told and be allowed to take that into account?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware of our proposal to enable the courts to draw the appropriate inferences from the silence of those who are asked questions. He will also know that it has been warmly welcomed by the police, the public and the majority of the judges who gave evidence to the royal commission.

Television (Violence)

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he plans to commission into the effects of violence on television and video on children and young people.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We intend to examine the results of research into the viewing behaviour of juvenile offenders which has been commissioned jointly by the British Board of Film Classification, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. Pending the outcome of that examination, the Government have no plans to commission further research on the subject.

Ms Lynne: As research figures show that 118,000 children under the age of 16 saw Child's Play 3, the film mentioned in the James Bulger and the Susan Capper trials, is the Minister in favour of amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a new classification of "unsuitable for home viewing" for particularly gratuitously violent films and videos, particularly as, unlike the Minister, I do not believe that current legislation is operating successfully?

Mr. Lloyd: We will consider all the ideas that come up, but, as I just said, we want first to see the results of the research which I believe is due in March. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should look at the classifications under the 1984 Act, and no doubt there will need to be a great deal of discussion on that, but we have the strongest law on video classification in the world. It may well be that it could be stronger, but it would be wise to obtain all the information that we can to see how it can be effectively strengthened, rather than giving an immediate reaction to a particularly horrid case about which we all know so much.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his recent honour, aware that this is a matter of concern not just for parts of the House but for the entire House and the entire adult population of Britain, and that the time has come not for studies but for action to stop child pornography and child violence coming on to the screens at times when children can watch it?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks. He referred to child pornography

coming on to the screens, but the law is extremely tough against child pornography. It is being strengthened by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. However, what I think he is referring to, about which the great majority of people on both sides of the House and in the country at large are concerned, is the continual diet of violence on programmes of the broadcasting organisations and on videos. The difficulty is that, as I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree, any one particular item will, for most people, do no harm whatever; it is the cumulative effect and the repetitiveness that are dangerous. The law may well be strengthened, but the first line of defence is the editorial good sense of broadcasters.

Cleveland Police Authority

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the resources available to the Cleveland police authority to fight crime in the area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Provision for policing in Cleveland in 1994–95 will increase by more than 4 per cent.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that crime in my constituency has risen by 132 per cent. since the Government came to power, burglary by 148 per cent. and auto crime by 281 per cent., resulting most recently this morning in a tragic death in the town? As my constituents have almost despaired of anything being achieved to stop that crime wave, will the Minister give a clear answer to the question this afternoon: will the Government's new Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill cut crime for my constituents or not? Yes or no?

Mr. Wardle: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in the regret that he expressed about the death to which he referred. I know that he prides himself on his presentational skills, so it is a pity that he did a disservice to the House. In the year to 30 June 1993, crime fell in the area of the Cleveland constabulary by 2 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has not told the House that, for the current year, Cleveland's police standard spending assessment in-creased by 3·9 per cent., but the county council cut the police budget by 2 per cent. and, in nine of the past 15 years, has not even applied for an increase in its establishment. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question of course is yes.

Mr. Devlin: Turning to another aspect of the Cleveland police, is my hon. Friend aware of how pleased the police in Stockton are that they are to be testing the new side-handled baton, which they called for and which the Home Secretary was only too ready to grant them? Will my hon. Friend further congratulate the police in Stockton on the greatest fall in burglary rates in Cleveland?

Mr. Wardle: I happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Stockton. He is right, too, about the value of the trials of the baton to which he referred. I am sure that both he and the House will be aware that the Cleveland force has done an excellent job. Not only has crime fallen by 2 per cent. throughout the area of the force, but the clear-up rate is better than the national average. Civilianisation is proceeding apace; by the end of


1992, 100 uniformed officers had been released by civilianisation, and it is planned to release another 40 for operational duties this year.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Whatever may be happening in Cleveland, are not large numbers of constabularies, including Warwickshire constabulary, facing budget cuts—in the case of Warwickshire, of 2 per cent.—as a result of Government policy? Does not the Minister understand that if the Government fail to deliver to constabularies the resources that they require to put officers on the beat, that is a false economy? If we do not provide police with the resources that they need, we will pay the price in higher insurance rates and in the rise in crime over which the Government have presided for the past 14 years.

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, provision for police spending will increase by 4·4 per cent. What local authorities do with their budgets, having received their police SSAs, is a matter for them. If some Labour local authorities are willing to spend more on social services and less on their police budgets, that is a matter for them and a matter for which they will be answerable to their electorates.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Gyles Brandreth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Order. Mr. Roy Hughes.

Police Reorganisation

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with representatives of police committees concerning reorganisation.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Ministers and officials have had many meetings with representatives of police authorities about our proposals for police reform.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister appreciate that delay and speculation about reorganisation are undermining morale in the police service at a time when the police need to be ever more vigilant in the fight against crime? Will he recognise the greater efficiency of smaller forces such as those of Gwent and Dyfed-Powys? Given such efficiency and high levels of crime detection in these forces, is not the message to leave well alone?

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the answer that I gave on 13 May last year to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—that as a result of local government reform in Wales, some changes in the policing arrangements as between south Wales and Gwent are likely to be necessary. Home Office officials have already met the police authorities and chief constables and are making a detailed assessment of the options.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should not be unnecessary delay. That is why the consultations are already under way and, as soon as the detailed assessment is completed, decisions will be taken.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend consider it correct if police authorities undercut the morale of their own police forces by spreading rumours about the ill effects of the new police authority formation, as is happening in my hon. Friend's and my county of Sussex?

Mr. Wardle: There is a lot of needless scaremongering about the reforms. As my hon. Friend knows, the new

police authorities will be small, efficient bodies able to focus on key strategic tasks. A statutory obligation will be placed on them to consult locally, to draw up with the chief officer a local plan or strategy, and then to be answerable for that by reporting the results of policing every year.

Tariff Sentences

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relinquish his powers to impose tariff sentences on those sentenced by the courts.

Mr. Howard: I set tariffs only in relation to those persons who have received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. I have no plans at present to change that arrangement, but I am still considering the recent report of the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, chaired by Lord Lane.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Home Secretary agree that the case of Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz illustrates the urgent need for decisions on the duration of mandatory life sentences to be left to the trial judge, who is in possession of all the facts and the legal arguments? Is that not better than the Home Secretary's exercising power in an arbitrary and unaccountable way—which, in this case, has extended those two men's sentences far beyond those delivered by the trial judge?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Of course full weight is given to the opinions of both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, but the final decision in such cases is a matter for the Home Secretary.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise the huge support in north Hertfordshire and the country as a whole for tougher sentencing powers to deal with persistent young offenders? If they are locked up, they cannot commit offences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents that these excellent proposals will not be watered down by the Opposition, in Committee or elsewhere?

Mr. Howard: Subject, of course, to the will of the House, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We certainly have no intention of watering down the powers, because we appreciate full well that the public need to be protected from the activities of the relatively small number of young offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences. That is why we are introducing these provisions, which we intend to implement as soon as possible.

Jury-nobbling

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding jury-nobbling; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no recent representations. We are determined that criminals should not be allowed to escape their just deserts because of interference with jurors. As soon, therefore, as the necessary details can be worked out, we intend to ask the House to approve provisions which, if approved, will allow retrials to be held after proven instances of jury nobbling.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me add my congratulations on his recent elevation.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nobbling and intimidation of juries, like the intimidation of witnesses, is a serious abuse of the criminal justice system and seriously undermines justice? Does he agree that the weight of prosecution evidence that now has to be disclosed to defence counsel is leading to an increase in the number of such abuses, and that disclosure needs to be reviewed carefully in accordance with what our senior policemen are telling us?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, of course that is true.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that more support schemes for witnesses are needed in the Crown courts to deal with jury nobbling and the intimidation of witnesses? Why are the Government cutting such schemes, rather than expanding them?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong; we are expanding them.

Lenient Sentences

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on preparing an order on referral of lenient sentences.

Mr. Howard: I can announce today that an order will be laid shortly which will extend the Attorney-General's powers with effect from 1 March. The order will bring within those powers offences of indecent assault, cruelty to children and making threats to kill.

Mr. Oppenheim: If the policy of referring lenient sentences is central to the fight against crime, how seriously should we take the representations of those who like to claim the moral high ground on the law-and-order issue, and who constantly pontificate about the need for the Government to take tougher action on crime, but who bitterly opposed and voted against the referral of lenient sentences? They include the Opposition home affairs spokesman.

Mr. Howard: The seriousness with which we can take the Opposition's attitude can best be tested by recalling what was said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—then shadow Home Secretary—when the powers were first introduced. He said
It is quite wrong that a man or woman should be required to serve the longer of two sentences imposed on them. It is wrong that the obviously political intrusion which this system provides should be introduced into our legal system. It is wrong that the Attorney-General should be subject to the campaigns inside and outside this House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 693.]
He was followed into the Division Lobby against the measure by all senior members of the Opposition Front Bench and all members of the present Opposition home affairs team, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman does not like to be reminded of those facts.

Mr. Grocott: In line with his tough view on sentencing policy, what does the Home Secretary think would be an appropriate sentence for the squandering, waste and misappropriation of £21 million of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter for the district auditor. [Interruption.] It is still under consideration by the district auditor and it is a remarkable illustration of the Opposition's attitude to justice that they are anxious to leap in on the basis of provisional representations before the law has completed its course.

Custodial Sentences

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted into the effectiveness of custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: The research and statistics department of the Home Office regularly publishes material relevant to the consideration of the effectiveness of sentencing, including custodial sentencing.

Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the value of custody lies not only in giving the best possible protection to the public from serious and persistent offenders but in improving the effectiveness and credibility of non-custodial sentences by giving a sanction to the courts against those who refuse to comply with non-custodial sentences and who will not respond to them but commit further offences? Are not those who talk about whether prison works ignoring that fact and are they not inviting house burglars, car thieves and the like to cock a snook at the courts?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely because of the point that he has raised that the figures that we derive from our research consistently underestimate the deterrent effect of imprisonment.

Ms Ruddock: Does the Home Secretary know, however, of the calculation made by the head of research at the Home Office to the effect that it would require a 25 per cent. increase in the prison population to achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in crime? Surely that would cost in the region of £1 billion. Given the fact that only one in 50 crimes leads to a conviction, would it not be much better for the Government to have a comprehensive crime prevention policy, which would be not only cheaper but much more effective in reducing the rate of crime?

Mr. Howard: The point that the hon. Lady makes is thoroughly absurd. Of course, most offences and most offenders should not be subject to sentence of imprisonment so to compare rates of imprisonment with all offences committed, as she has done, is of no relevance to the argument. Much more relevant is the research which shows that between three and 13 offences could be prevented for each convicted domestic burglar who is imprisoned for a year rather than sentenced to community service. That is the relevant statistic—why do the Opposition run away from it?

Elderly People (Attacks)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged over 70 years have been attacked in their own homes in 1993.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I regret that the information requested on people aged over 70 is not available from statistics of


recorded crime. However, data from recent British crime surveys suggest that those aged 60 and over are less likely to suffer incidences of violent crime in and around the home than those in younger age groups.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the circumstantial link between drug addiction and the growing number of cases of elderly women in their own homes who are being badly battered, raped or, in one case, locked in a cupboard, thrown face down and left to die? Does he not think it is time that the House had a full day's debate on drug addiction and the growing number of innocent people made victims because we are trying to prevent silly people taking drugs and destroying themselves?

Mr. Maclean: Elderly people are vulnerable and they fear crime more than younger people. Many of them are afraid to go out at night for fear of burglary or mugging. There have been despicable and cowardly attacks on old people, which we all condemn and deplore, but statistics clearly show that people under 24 are about 20 times more likely to be victims of crime than those aged over 60. It might seem—although we cannot go only by anecdote—that junkies and others are targeting their own age group rather than the elderly. I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing more research, but whether a debate is held is not a matter for me.

Mr. Allen: As the Minister has had a couple of days to think about the answer, will he tell elderly people, hon. Members and people watching on television whether the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will cut crime? It is a very simple question. Will the Minister answer today since he could not do so the other day?

Mr. Maclean: I will tell the Labour party what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, on which Labour abstained, will do. It will make our criminal justice system the most effective possible, and of course we shall see results. We want cautioning to fall and, following the issuing of new guidelines by my right hon. and learned Friend, it is starting to do so. We want to see fewer police officers behind desks and more on the streets, and with cuts in their paperwork and less middle management that is exactly what we shall see. We want to see persistent juvenile offenders off the streets and in custody and, with our new secure training centres, that is what we shall see, yet that is what the Labour party abstained on. Above all, we want a criminal justice system in which everyone—the public, the police and the courts—can have confidence, and that is the yardstick by which I shall judge the Bill.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that many elderly people fall prey to young violent criminals, including those under the age of 15 who are now subject to the Children Act 1989? Will he confirm that the secure training orders envisaged in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will put such young thugs behind secure bars and locks for the first time, which will give some reassurance to the elderly, who fall prey to them?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which was given a Second Reading on Tuesday and about which the Labour party could not make up its mind, gives courts for the first time the power to send directly to secure accommodation youngsters aged under 15 who have a history of persistent

offending. That will give some peace of mind not only to elderly people but to many in villages, towns and housing estates throughout the length and breadth of this country and in Labour constituencies. I am not sure how Labour Members will be able to face their constituency executives tomorrow night and tell them that on this major measure, which affects their constituents, they did not know what to do.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers he estimates will be rostered for duty on Sundays as a result of the partial deregulation of Sunday trading.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The number of police officers rostered for duty is an operational matter for chief officers.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that it will be necessary to roster additional police officers, environmental health officers, street cleaners and trading standards officers to police Sunday trading? Who will pay for them?

Mr. Lloyd: The Association of Chief Police Officers suggests that the resource implications for policing are minimal and manageable. I think that I prefer the police's judgment of the matter to the hon. Gentleman's.

Neighbourhood Watch

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on neighbourhood watch schemes being involved in street patrolling.

Mr. Howard: A number of neighbourhood watch schemes already patrol as part of their voluntary crime prevention activities. To encourage such local initiatives, I have asked for a code of practice to be drawn up in consultation with the police.

Mr. Winnick: Does not the Home Secretary realise how ridiculous and dangerous it is to advise neighbourhood watch schemes to get involved in street patrols? Has not he been told that the police consider it to be very dangerous? Why does not he admit that what he wants is for residents increasingly to use private guards, which is another form of privatisation of the police service?

Mr. Howard: No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anyone really wanted to see the Labour party's attitude towards such matters he should have observed the manifest derision of Opposition Members when I recounted to the House on Tuesday the work being done by Town Watch in Sandwich, patrolling the streets to reduce crime in the area and to escort elderly citizens who want to be taken out at night to visit their friends and neighbours. I went out with Sandwich Town Watch on Sunday night, and I was greatly impressed by what I saw. Such work should receive a tribute from the Labour party, not the derision that we saw on Tuesday. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. There are far too many noisy conversations going on. [Interruption.] Order. The House must settle down now.

Mr. Paice: Is not it true that people who become involved in the patrolling schemes alongside neighbour-hood watch understand clearly that the idea of people


patrolling and keeping watch is a major deterrent to those involved in much of the petty crime that besets our housing estates? Is that not the real reason why my constituents in Cottenham, and people in many other places, have become involved in such schemes? They are a means of helping to keep down crime, especially in rural areas. Do they not represent a sensible way forward, alongside the special constable scheme, which is also being widely welcomed in my constituency?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend but such schemes are of use not only in rural areas. I have told the House of my experiences in Sandwich on Sunday night; last Thursday night I patrolled in a similar way with a group of concerned citizens in Washington DC. They said to me, "People behave differently if they know that they are being watched." [Laughter.] That is the principle behind neighbourhood watch.—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howard: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order now.

Mr. Howard: It is astonishing how reluctant the Labour party is to take seriously the safety of people on our streets and in their houses, and the extent to which the active citizen can make a contribution towards achieving those objectives.

Mr. Michael: I assure the Home Secretary that he is being watched. Does he not accept that patrolling our streets is part of the job of a constable, which demands training and expertise?
Our derision is not for those good citizens who, out of fear and frustration, patrol the streets, but for the Home Secretary who fails to support the police. He is putting at risk those who undertake such patrols, and other citizens, too. Why has a Home Secretary from a party that promised 1,000 extra police this year delivered a cut of 224 instead? We hear constant promises of support for the police, but the citizens to whom the question refers would be in bed at night if the Home Secretary would only deliver that support.

Mr. Howard: We have fully discharged our manifesto promise to increase police numbers. If I have failed to support the police, why did the chairman of the Police Federation say about my speech in Blackpool,
My message to the Home Secretary is that what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime"?
The people who patrol the streets of Sandwich do so not out of fear and frustration but out of a public-spirited concern for their community that the Labour party will never understand.

Police

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle managers.

Mr. Charles Wardle: That is a matter for chief officers to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of

their own forces, but my right hon. and learned Friend has made it possible over time for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front-line operational police duties.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House what support he has had for the proposals and is he aware of the many forward-looking police forces that are developing computer software programmes, which are now cutting administrative burdens and putting more police officers back on the beat?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received widespread and enthusiastic support not only for those two reform proposals, but for all his police reform proposals, because they will provide a modernised and more effective organisational structure, allow chief officers the freedom to deploy financial resources as they see fit —whether on equipment, on computer technology or on personnel—and allow for free-standing budgets that cannot be poached by local authorities. More officers with less paperwork will be getting out from behind their desks to the beat on locally focused operational duties. They will help to prevent crime, tackle crime where it occurs and protect the public.

Ms Glenda Jackson: If the reduction in paperwork is bringing such enormous benefits, why is my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate threatened with the removal of 22 police officers? Surely one of the quickest ways to bring peace of mind to the elderly who are indeed under threat in my constituency is by not only retaining the present number of police officers but increasing it.

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Lady will know, the deployment of police in the Metropolitan area is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Judging by the hon. Lady's concern, I am sure that she will support the Bill concerning the police in its passage through the House.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to get to grips with law and order, we cannot always leave it to the police, but must rely on measures such as those introduced by the Home Secretary yesterday and we must rely on the judiciary to give hobnail-boot sentences and not carpet-slipper sentences?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend provides a powerful endorsement of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. He is also absolutely right to point out that it is partnership which matters in the fight against crime and crime prevention between community groups, members of the public and local authorities working with the police.

Police Recruitment

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lift the freeze on police recruitment in the next financial year.

Mr. Charles Wardle: There is no recruitment freeze. Forces remain free to recruit up to their authorised establishment.

Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Minister says, but does he agree that although the police are free to recruit, they need to be supported by resources? In his reforms of the police, will the Home Secretary consider that they need


further resources, will he ensure that those resources are available and, in making those resources available, will he take into consideration the partnership that needs to be forged between the police, the local community and local authorities?

Mr. Wardle: That is precisely why the police spending provision will increase next year by 4·4 per cent., precisely why 279 extra police posts have been approved in South Yorkshire since 1979—an extra 10 per cent.—and why, since 1979, across the country we have some 16,600 more uniformed police officers.

Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy of giving chief officers control over the budgets for police officers and civilian staff will enable those chief officers to deploy resources more efficiently in the circumstances of the regions for which they are responsible?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, we have an out-dated system by which police chief officers have to express every bid for extra money in terms of additional uniformed posts. Now, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, chief officers will have the flexibility to decide how they spend their budget.

Operation Cheetah

Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of Operation Cheetah on Merseyside to date; and whether the inquiry is continuing.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Merseyside police expect the total cost of Operation Cheetah to be approximately £2·2 million. The inquiry is now at an end.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Merseyside police committee has expressed concern at the number of hours that have been spent on this investigation? Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between the Merseyside police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Mr. Wardle: In that case, no doubt the chairman of the police authority will make his feelings known, as I am sure he has, to the chief officer. It is for the chief officer to allocate resources and to deploy officers on operational matters. It must be the responsibility of the police to investigate such allegations.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that wherever there is suspected wrongdoing on Merseyside it is entirely right for the police to investigate it?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right and that is precisely what the police did.

Departmental Efficiency

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.

Mr. Howard: Steps to improve the efficiency of the Home Office and its services include market testing, contracting out, computerisation, better purchasing and greater productivity.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole way in which his Department is working now demonstrates the effectiveness of what he is doing and that the new measures which he has announced are exactly what people are looking for?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right. I am gratified by the widespread support that I have received from the public for the measures that I am putting in place. It is a great shame that the Labour party could not support them on Tuesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein calling for the clarification of the Downing street declaration is just a sickening attempt by the IRA's apologists to shuffle the responsibility for their evil campaign of terror and fear? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibilities and grasped the challenge of adopting the democratic path?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people in this country and throughout the island of Ireland. I welcome in particular the recent statement by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), making clear that he sees no excuse whatever for continuing violence and appealing for people to devote themselves exclusively to the democratic process. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the joint declaration is not an invitation for renegotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have gone to great lengths in this House and beyond it to ensure that the joint declaration is fully understood and we shall, of course, continue to do so. We still await a positive response from the IRA.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister unequivoc-ally condemn the gerrymandering and wilful misconduct which has cost £21 million of taxpayers' money in what his party has described as a flagship council?

The Prime Minister: Let me say unequivocally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the reported allegations about the council turn out to be true, of course I condemn such activities just as I would condemn malpractice in any council, wherever it occurred. It would be wrong to comment on this case while the auditor is still considering it. The auditor operates independently of Government, has full powers to pursue his inquiries and I have no doubt that he will continue to use them to the full. We should wait and see precisely what the outcome may be. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming that people have committed malpractice until they are proved innocent. I would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a barrister, would recognise that that is no way to pass judgment.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister recollect the frequent endorsements that he and his colleagues have offered to Westminster city council, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State for Employment, that Westminster council was one of the Tory's stunning successes and a source of cheer for every Conservative? Taking everything into account, does the Prime Minister think that those endorsements were wholly wise?

The Prime Minister: I have just made it perfectly clear to the whole House that the district auditor's report contains a number of serious allegations. At this stage, they are allegations. There is now a perfectly proper legal process by which the allegations will be examined in depth and the truth arrived at. The district auditor has been at pains to stress that his findings are provisional. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until those findings are confirmed before he is so swift to judge.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the matter has now been investigated for four years, and what is revealed is a devastating example of financial corruption and an abuse of power by senior members of the Conservative party? Cannot he at least condemn that?

The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly. But, as has been made entirely clear, this is the start of the legal process. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, most people will prefer to wait until that is completed and not find people guilty until and unless they are proven to be guilty. That is a cardinal principle of British law which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's sharp fall in unemployment? Does he recall that one year ago the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemploy-ment would rise month after month? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to make another such prediction?

The Prime Minister: Most people would probably settle not for another prediction but for an admission from the hon. Gentleman that he got it wrong again and again and again. I very much welcome yesterday's fall in unemployment, which means that the number of unemployed people has fallen by nearly a quarter of a million over the past year. Of course, it is still too high, but the fall of nearly 47,000 on top of the falls in recent months suggests that we are now seeing a continuing downward trend in the level of unemployment. We are the only western European nation to have low inflation, an economy that is growing and unemployment that is falling significantly.

Mr. Ashdown: Does—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. There is impossibly bad behaviour today.

Mr. Ashdown: Does Lord Justice Scott still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: It was the Government who set up the inquiry and gave Lord Justice Scott the freedom to pursue it as he thinks fit. I have no adverse comments to make on the way that he is doing it.

Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £20 million contract won by Plymouth-based British Aerospace (Systems and Equipment) Ltd. in December, further boosted by a share in the £50 million contract announced by the Ministry of Defence yesterday? Is that not a fine illustration of defence contracts boosting and sustaining British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Liberal policy on defence were followed, those defence jobs would simply not exist and many people in the west country would be out of work?

The Prime Minister: I am, of course, delighted at the contracts to which my hon. Friend refers. It is certainly the case that if the reductions in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were carried into force, the implications not only for our capacity to defend ourselves but for British industry, not least in the west country, would be very profound. It would be a reassuring change if the Leader of the Liberal party were to say the same thing in the west country as he says elsewhere.

London Hospitals

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to a London national health service hospital.

The Prime Minister: I shall be making a series of visits around the country, during which I intend to include NHS hospitals, as I have in the past.

Mr. Corbyn: In his visits around the country, will the Prime Minister undertake to explain to Londoners why more than 150,000 people are on hospital waiting lists? Beds are being closed and wards are being taken out of operation, and one night in Bart's hospital more than 30 people had to sleep on floors or on trolleys because there was not sufficient space for them. Are not the Prime Minister's policies of the internal market leading to more and more closures and losses of bed space as the crisis and the chaos get worse? Is not it time for him to intervene to scrap the internal market and give Londoners the health service which they need, deserve and demand? Is not that a basic right?

The Prime Minister: We are certainly seeking to give Londoners the health service which they deserve. In addition, we are seeking to improve dramatically primary health care in the capital and that has been evident for some time.
The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in his catalogue the dramatic reductions in the times which patients wait for hospital treatment. Since the reforms have been implemented, the number of patients who have been waiting for more than a year has fallen from around 120,000 to just over 70,000, and that figure is on a declining trend. The hon. Gentleman will know of expenditure which has been made in his own area's district


health authority. He ought not to underestimate the work that is being done to improve the health service for all the people who live in London.

Engagements

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Milligan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work that is being done in Eastleigh to develop a safer door lock for trains? Such a lock could have averted some of the 300 deaths which have occurred during the past 20 years when passengers have fallen out of trains. Will the Government encourage British Rail to invest in the new technology which would not only save lives on the railways but would also save jobs in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that British Rail is actively considering the technical feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the system to which he refers. I know how important the decision is for my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he has worked on behalf of his constituents. British Rail is examining the matter at the moment.

Mr. Kaufman: On November 10 1992, the Prime Minister, together with the Attorney-General, announced the appointment of Lord Justice Scott to conduct his inquiry. Will the Prime Minister now express his full confidence that Lord Justice Scott is conducting the inquiry fairly, particularly since he is due shortly to appear before Lord Justice Scott? Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be treated fairly by Lord Justice Scott? Will the Prime Minister repudiate the scurrilous attack on Lord Justice Scott by Lord Howe?

The Prime Minister: I know that it has been a quite noisy House this afternoon, but I seem to recall answering that question a few moments ago. I will reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government appointed Lord Justice Scott to conduct an independent inquiry. It is therefore for him to draw up his own procedures and it is not a matter for the Government to comment on those procedures. I have no adverse comments to make upon those procedures, as I indicated a few moments ago.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued incarceration of Ron Arad is quite unacceptable? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their efforts to secure his freedom?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance, and we will continue to support efforts to free Mr. Arad. We have raised the case on innumerable occasions with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who may be able to help. On his visit to Israel earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary met members of Mr. Arad's family and assured them that we will continue to do what we can to help. My right hon. Friend gave them our warm sympathy for the pain and suffering which they must feel at present.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that whether or not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic proceeds to interpret, elaborate, explain or, indeed, encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to the Downing street declaration, he will stand by it and that he expects members of Sinn Fein-IRA to cease their campaign completely and indicate that they will lay down their arms so that they can enter the democratic process?

The Prime Minister: I certainly wish to see them unreservedly and permanently end violence and then enter into exploratory talks that can lead to them taking part in the democratic process. I reiterate again: we are not in the business of clarifying the declaration. The declaration is clear. What is intended by Mr. Adams in his present activities is to seek bit by bit to draw the Government into negotiation upon the joint declaration. That is not on offer to Mr. Adams now. It will not be on offer to Mr. Adams in the future. If he wishes to enter into discussions, he knows how he may do it. He can decide to give up violence. After three months he can enter into exploratory talks. Then he will be able to enter into the democratic talks process itself. That is the route ahead. The only question that needs to be asked is not of the British Government or the Irish Government but of Mr. Adams. Will he stop the violence and enter the democratic process or will he not? Everything else is fudge.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to give us the business for the forthcoming week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motion on the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme.
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY—Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
Motion relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) regulations.
Motion relating to the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day (first allotted day).
There will be a debate on Accountability and Waste in the National Health Service on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 21 JANUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: As the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is a piece of gerrymandering so shameless as to make Westminster city council look like rank amateurs, will the Lord President withdraw it for debate on Monday and put in its place a debate on the Child Support Agency? As he will recall, there has been neither a statement nor a debate in the House on that matter. He will know, as I do, that there is widespread anxiety in every party represented in the House and widespread dissatisfaction at the changes made so far by the Government, which are regarded by all parties as wholly inadequate. That seems to us to be an urgent subject for debate.
In view of the unprecedented attempt by Lord Howe to undermine the independence and integrity of the Scott inquiry, will the Lord President ask the President of the Board of Trade to come to the House so that he can set beyond doubt on the record the Government's complete dissociation from the statements made by Lord Howe and their undertaking that not only the Prime Minister but no Minister or official of the Government gave Lord Howe any support or had any discussions with him before he made that statement to the Scott inquiry?
May I remind the Lord President that we have repeatedly sought a statement from the Home Secretary on the neglect of voter registration in Conservative boroughs such as the London borough of Brent. That neglect threatens to remove from thousands of British citizens the most basic right in a democracy—the right to vote. Will the Lord President bring the Home Secretary to the House to answer on the matter?

Mr. Newton: On the latter question, the Home Secretary has just been here and no doubt there would have been opportunities to raise that matter with him. I shall bring the right hon. Lady's question to his attention.
As for Lord Howe, I am certainly not aware of any discussions that he had with members of the Government before making his remarks to the inquiry yesterday and I am tempted—as my right hon. Friend clearly said in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, a few moments ago—simply to refer once again to the two answers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the Scott inquiry.
On the Child Support Agency, there has been a general welcome for the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced just before Christmas. There will be opportunities for debate in due course on the regulations required.
I do not accept the right hon. Lady's strictures on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and have no intention of removing it from the list of business.

Sir Dudley Smith: Despite all the pressures that will be on my right hon. Friend during these business questions, does not he think that it would be a good idea to get back to basic content and consider one of the most important things that has happened this week —the summit conference in Brussels over the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union? Does he believe that, perhaps not next week but within a reasonably short time, we should have the opportunity to debate the future of those two organisations and our attitudes towards them?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to advert to the great importance of those discussions and he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the outcome yesterday. On the question of a debate, perhaps I can simply undertake to bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I press the Leader of the House on the Child Support Agency? Will he confirm that the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 22 December will require statutory instruments to effect the change and that those instruments will be considered under the affirmative procedure? Does the Leader of the House understand that that matter is becoming extremely urgent and that if he cannot find time for a debate to implement the orders next week, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be looking for a statement during business questions next week to ensure that such a debate is organised for the week thereafter?

Mr. Newton: The Government's appreciation of the need to move speedily, especially following the report of the Select Committee, was well illustrated by the speed with which the statement followed the report. Of course, we shall not seek to delay the necessary measures. I would need to check how they fall between affirmative and negative orders.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. Friend will know that the persistent question of blight has long been one of the most difficult for any Government to resolve. Given the fact that there are more and more public infrastructure projects, many of which take up to 14 years


to complete, and that thousands of people see their property values destroyed by public works, will he consider a debate on that major issue?

Mr. Newton: It seems likely that, given the amount of interest in a number of major projects at the moment and the plans that are well known to my hon. Friend, opportunities for discussion on those matters will occur, but I cannot make a specific promise this afternoon.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As the Government cancelled today's health service debate and put it on the agenda for next Thursday, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to go to Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency before next Thursday, preferably one evening, so that he oan look at and speak to the people in the accident and emergency department who have been waiting for up to 10 hours and perhaps longer for treatment and the other people who are jam-packed on trolleys in the hospital corridors, waiting for a bed? Then the Minister could come to the House on Thursday and explain what the Government are going to do about it.

Mr. Newton: It is not the case that, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the Government cancelled today's debate and reinstated it next Thursday. We offered the Opposition a day next Thursday to replace the one that we found it necessary to take for other business today and they chose to transfer the health service debate that they had tabled for today. Of course, I do not in any way complain about that. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on a policy initiative that commands support across Dartford, Kent and the United Kingdom—the introduction of a national identity card?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that certain issues relating to that are being examined. I will, of course, bring his remarks to the attention, once again, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Monday's business, may I say to the Leader of the House, without posturing, that in my 31 years as a Member of the House I have never known a more ill-thought-out piece of legislation, from Governments of both parties, than the reforms in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. Frankly, that is saying something. Grave doubts have been expressed about the finance for the proposals, after their factual basis was blown apart by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and by the treasurers, and about their effects on education, particularly following the devastating report from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. In those circumstances, should not we use parliamentary mechanisms to ensure that after the Bill's Second Reading its Standing Committee is at least able to call witnesses for four to six of its sittings? That would establish some kind of factual basis for the Bill. Between now and Monday, will the Leader of the House at least consider that and talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Newton: It would be less than courteous of me simply to reject out of hand the hon. Gentleman's request, but I would not wish to raise his hopes that I or my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State would think it right to proceed down the path that he has suggested. I will, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my hon. Friend's attention. Otherwise, may I say that the very process of the Second Reading will enable the hon. Gentleman to raise many of those points, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that radio and television stopped using the voice of the actor as a substitute for the voice of the terrorist? If so, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a ministerial statement to be made as soon as possible on the measures that the Government intend to take to prevent the mechanical media from abusing the restrictions imposed upon them?

Mr. Newton: I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the crisis in the national health service, which was described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will the Leader of the House consider providing a day in Government time for a debate on it? That would enable every hon. Member to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers exactly what is going on. Is he aware that the Government-appointed members of the trust in my district health authority are proposing to close two hospitals with the loss of 300 beds and goodness knows how many jobs? In fact that, that decision will destroy the health service in Halifax Is not it time that the Government offered the House a del ete on the health service in their time because they have caused that crisis?

Mr. Newton: I do not regard the word "crisis" as a sensible description of the fact that the number of patients treated rose by more than 4 per cent. last year and is expected to rise by another 3 per cent. this year and the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Question Time, the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment has fallen from about 120,000 to 70,000 since the reforms were introduced.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that has been expressed by the wool textile and clothing industries at the lack of a decision on tariffs when the GATT round was signed? In view of the in importance of those tariff barriers to our industries, and therefore the people employed by them, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a discussion on them in the House as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that, in due course, there will be opportunities for further discussion on the generally very successful outcome of the GATT round. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to look with care at what my hon. Friend has said.

Ms Ann Coffey: Will the Leader of the House arrange time next week for an urgent debate on the British aerospace industry? Is he aware that, yesterday, during trade and industry questions, the Minister for Industry replied to a question on British Aerospace's venture, AVRO, at Woodford? He said:


the general fortunes of this business are improving."—[Official Report, 12 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 162.]
I have heard today, however, that massive redundancies at the Woodford plant will be announced tomorrow. Is not that evidence of the fact that the Minister is unaware of what is happening in the industry? In view of that and of the fact that the GATT negotiations did not resolve the problem relating to indirect and direct subsidy allowable to the British aerospace industry, which puts it at serious disadvantage, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent debate before yet more of my constituents pay with their jobs because of Government inaction in relation to that crucial industry?

Mr. Newton: I am clearly not in a position now to comment on what, from the hon. Lady's initial remarks, I take to be speculation or prediction. However, I can make the point that, since 1979, the Government have provided more than £1·5 billion in support for major aerospace programmes and civil R and D. That is probably greater support than for almost any comparable industry in the country.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the future of NATO, taking account of the meeting of the Prime Ministers of NATO countries this week, so that the position of Poland can be more fully debated than has been the case and so that we may take account of the feelings of expatriate Poles in this country, many of whom live in Ealing and fought in the Atlantic alliance against German tyranny in the war, and who fear for the future of Poland unless it is inside NATO as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question underlines the request for a debate that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). As I said earlier, I will of course bear that request in mind.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House find time to review the workings of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 in the light of the information that I have sent him about the case of a constituent of mine, Daniel Liddell, who was kicked unconscious and almost killed by thugs in Falkirk? Two of those thugs, Steven McDuff and James Easton, pleaded guilty and were released without being sentenced because the procurator-fiscal got the date wrong for calling them back for sentence. He blamed that on what he said were over-complicated regulations attached to the new Act. George Scott, the procurator-fiscal, said that the reason —

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Connarty: I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will not mind me quoting.

Madam Speaker: Order. Yes, I do mind the hon. Gentleman quoting. These are business questions. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail about a particular case. What he should be seeking to do is ask the Leader of the House for a debate on an issue. If the hon. Gentleman would come to a conclusion, I should be grateful.

Mr. Connarty: The procurator-fiscal said that it was caused by stupidity in the drafting of the Act. Therefore, I ask that time is found to review that and find out whether that allegation is incorrect or in fact true.

Mr. Newton: What I think the hon. Gentleman has asked me to do is to find time to undertake a review of the matter. Although I cannot promise to do so personally, I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said today.

Mr. John Butcher: Did my right hon. Friend find it rather curious that so many Opposition Members, who yesterday urged the Prime Minister to bomb the Serbs around Sarajevo, seem to have forgotten their history? May we have a debate on Bosnia so that the House may remind itself of the centuries-old ethnic and cultural links between Serbia and Russia? If Russians were treated to the sight of French, American and British planes bombing Serbia, it would feed the extremists in the Russian Parliament and make life very difficult for Boris Yeltsin. The debate could also provide an opportunity for those who urge the bombing to give an understanding that they will not be the first to condemn our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should British soldiers' wives be widowed as a result of the escalation.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has underlined what my right hon. Friends and, to be fair, numbers of hon. Members, although perhaps not all Opposition Members, have acknowledged throughout, which is the need to take into account a range of important factors, political and military, before jumping into decisions and actions.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Some 15 minutes ago, the Leader of the House announced the business for next week. Will he tell us what specific factor prevented him from announcing the business for two weeks ahead? That is not something for which he needs anyone's permission.

Mr. Newton: If I may say so, what happened yesterday constituted quite a good illustration of the need to retain flexibility at times.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since later today a distinguished group of colleagues and myself hope to put down an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will allow the courts to use corporal punishment in place of imprisonment for certain categories of young offenders, could my right hon. Friend be kind and courteous enough to undertake to allow us to debate the matter on the Floor of the House, with a free vote, as many of my, and perhaps his, constituents would feel that that would lie as well with the "back to basics" campaign as some of the other issues that have been treated accordingly?

Mr. Newton: I cannot quite give my hon. Friend that undertaking without giving some consideration to the matter.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House recall the Government White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a partnership for good" released last year which said that there could be many more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee so that more Scottish issues could be determined in Scotland? Given


that, would not it be a good idea to refer the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee and allow Scottish Members of Parliament to determine that subject? If the union really is a partnership, why should the votes of English Tory Members of Parliament be required to gerrymander Scottish local government?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, as ever ingenious and tendentious, raises what he may regard as an interesting point, but one to which I propose to respond with caution. We are in a little difficulty in pursuing proposals, whether of his kind or of those that we might prefer, in the absence of what are known as the usual channels.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to debate the appalling management of council housing finance in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Westminster!"]—a number of Labour-controlled boroughs in London—in particular, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth, which have been singled out by the district auditor? Is he aware that, in 10 boroughs in London, more than 20 per cent. of the council housing rents remain uncollected, a matter of considerable concern to London and something of which Opposition Members should take notice?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about our attitude to such matters when allegations are shown to be founded, wherever they may occur.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-clay motion 310 concerning the detention of Jamaican citizens at Gatwick?
[That this House deplores the decision of immigration officials at Gatwick Airport on 21st December to detain 190 out of the 326 passengers on charter flight YULE 966 from Kingston, Jamaica; notes that no justification has yet been made for why so many individuals should have been detained or why this particular flight should have been singled out for action on this scale; further notes the failure of immigration officials at Gatwick promptly to notify waiting relatives and friends as to the reason for the delay; condemns the decision to hold 57 passengers overnight, and in some cases for several days, at Campsfield detention centre in acfordshire; is concerned that some of the detainees claim to have been mistreated; notes that there is no evidence that any of the individuals detained were implicated in criminal or drug-related activities; notes that those removed and returned to Jamaica will encounter severe difficulties in ever returning as visitors to the United Kingdom; notes further that the abolition of appeal rights against visitors' refusals in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, leave those refused entry without any effective means of redress against an unfair decision; believes that this incident will severely damage the United Kingdom's reputation abroad as a country which welcomes visitors; believes further that this incident will damage race relations; notes that this incident is symptomatic of the discrimination and lack of accountability in the United Kingdom's immigration system; and urges the Home Secretary to institute a full public inquiry into this case.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that one of the passengers who arrived on the charter flight was a Jamaican woman who had been issued by the British

authorities in Jamaica with a visa entitling her to settlement in the United Kingdom, which usually would have meant that she would have been admitted within minutes of arrival? Instead of that, she was kept waiting for 12 hours and, as she was four months pregnant, it is clear that that wait caused her considerable distress.
As the Government have refused even to name the passengers who were deported on Christmas day, or to give any reasons why they were refused entry, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to give an early statement so that he can be called to account for the exercise of brutal state power that took place on Christmas day when 27 Jamaicans were deported back to Jamaica?

Mr. Newton: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's phrase "brutal state power". I think that he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has written to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about the matter generally and has placed a copy of his letter in the Library. It makes it clear that the immigration service had good reason to pay particular attention to that flight, although each individual passenger was considered individually on merit. There was a delay in completing all the necessary interviews, but an inquiry point for waiting friends and relatives was set up promptly and used by many people. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will wish to look into the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. George Kynoch: Further to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) to the district auditor's report on Lambeth council issued in May 1993, will my right hon. Friend also consider the alleged goings on in Monklands district council and, taking that into account, seriously consider an early debate on the performance of these Labour councils?

Mr. Newton: I refer my hon. Friend to what I said a few moments ago and to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Following the issue of two sets of district auditor reports in Clay Cross, which I represent, two groups of councillors were debarred from office and surcharged and some of them were made bankrupt. The second team of councillors were surcharged to the tune of £2,000, or a little more, to be paid jointly and severally.
May we have a debate on surcharging, debarring and bankruptcy, so that we may contrast Clay Cross, where people behaved honourably and decently, with Westminster, where £21 milion was at stake and where there was no honour or decency?

Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend said during Prime Minister's questions, allegations have been made and will now be examined by due process. Those against whom the allegations have been made have an opportunity to make their case and further consideration can take place in various ways. The sensible course is to allow that process to proceed—not the course that the hon. Gentleman invites me to take.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the activities of Tameside metropolitan borough council, following the


investigation on the Radio 4 programme "Face the Facts" this morning, which exposed a company set up to operate the council's nursing homes which has made multi-million pound losses and which is run by Labour councillors, members of their familes and Labour party lackeys?

Mr. Newton: I note that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning is in his place ready to make a statement shortly. I am sure that he will have heard and noted what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Richard Burden: Given the rather idiosyncratic definition that the Leader of the House has given to the term "cancellation" of a debate, would he care to reflect on the impact of the delay in debating the national health service on the delegation that came here today from the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham, which is threatened with closure as a result of the Government's health reforms? The delegation comes from a city that stands to lose more than a quarter of its acute beds as a result of the market mechanism.
What confidence can patients and health service staff in Birmingham have that the Government will not find an excuse again next week to duck their responsibility to debate the crisis that they have caused in our national health service?

Mr. Newton: I inadvertently suggested just now that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning was to make a statement shortly—in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to make it.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it depends on whether the Opposition choose to go on behaving as they did yesterday. We had no wish to cancel today's debate; in effect, the Opposition cancelled it by failing to behave reasonably.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: In view of the widespread public interest in the pressure that membership of this House imposes on married life, is not the time ripe for a debate on the hours that the House sits? Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports in the newspapers—or has he perhaps heard it from the Labour party—that the Opposition have welched on their intention to support the reform of our sitting hours and intend to keep us up all hours of the night for narrow party-political reasons?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should direct that question at the serried ranks of former usual channels on the Opposition Front Bench who are looking at me now. I note with genuine regret a report in The Independent today, which states:
Labour leaders last night confirmed talks between the two sides had collapsed over a recommendation
about automatic timetabling. The report goes on to say that a senior member of the Labour party who was a member of the relevant Committee said that
he saw 'no prospect' of the Jopling plan being enacted".
If that is so, I deeply regret it—but it should be made clear more formally by the Opposition if it is true.

Mr. Alan Simpson: May I repeat the request for a debate on the divisive and destructive effects of the Child Support Act 1991? If it is not possible to arrange that as a matter of urgency, may we at least have

a statement from the Minister responsible for such matters about the particular hardships caused by the disregarding of people with families, both abroad and in this country?
I ask the Leader of the House particularly to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the status of members of the armed forces with a second family based abroad is not recognised in the calculation of their disposable income. People who are putting themselves on the line to support their country find that they cannot afford to support their own children. May we have a statement to clarify the rule that the Child Support Act should encompass all the children of a person, not just a selected few?

Mr. Newton: I hope that none of those involved will regard it as a breach of confidence for me to say that I have already spoken to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who takes a particular interest in such matters. I know that he is aware of the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers and has undertaken to ensure that it is looked into.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) asked about a review of the procedures of the House and the timetabling of all business. I have asked this question a number of times, but let me repeat it: is it not intolerable that the Opposition can effectively block reform simply by leaving an empty chair? Will my right hon. Friend present the Government's decisions on the matter at an early date, so that we can debate and pass the necessary legislation?

Mr. Newton: I do not wish to add to what I said in my earlier answer, but I hope that Opposition Members who are involved in these matters will note what my hon. Friend has said. His remarks reflect considerable frustration among hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The fundamental duty of the House is to scrutinise Government policy and executive action. Can the Leader of the House, with his special responsibilities, deal with a fundamental problem?
The Prime Minister has announced that the whole fabric of Government policy will be affected by his "back to basics" strategy and that it will permeate all Departments and policies; yet we have not debated it in the House. Given the number of Conservative Members who are confused about the policy, surely it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House to ensure that, as soon as possible, a full day is set aside for a debate on the "back to basics" policy, introduced by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Newton: The House has had substantial opportunities to discuss, for instance, educational matters and standards. Only the day before yesterday, it had the opportunity to discuss fully the Government's criminal justice proposals. Those are important elements in the programme and the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to talk about them.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on facilities in the House of Commons? I have looked very carefully, but as far as I can see there are no condom machines in the House. I realise that their installation would come rather too late for some Conservative Members, but it would probably be welcomed by the more circumspect among us.
Alternatively, perhaps we could seek some advice from Mrs. Lorena Bobbitt, who has a very direct way of dealing with members.

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether I can seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on whether that is a matter for the Accommodation and Works Committee, the Catering Committee or the Administration Committee; but it is certainly not a matter for the Information Committee.

Madam Speaker: I should have thought that the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were in extremely bad taste, but I refer him to the appropriate Committee.

Ms Liz Lynne: It was announced during the recess that in future it may be possible to use the eggs from dead foetuses for in vitro fertilisation. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the subject so that hon. Members as well as the general public can discuss it during the consultation period allowed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, who is well informed about these matters, will be aware of the consideration being given to them and will know that recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will follow in due course. I shall, of course, bring her request to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. John Hutton: Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), if there is not to be an early debate on the Government's "back to basics" policy, will the Leader of the House at least arrange for a copy of this important policy to be deposited in the Library so that hon. Members can read it?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether it is the usual practice to put into the Library a copy of the speech which, for example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made

at the party conference, but I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a copy because it sets it out very clearly.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I suppose that it is inevitable that the House will, as usual, rubber-stamp the Scottish legislation to be debated on Monday, but, as the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is deeply flawed and almost universally opposed by the people of Scotland, and in view of the fact that it will affect every locality in Scotland, may I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is important that as many parts of Scotland as possible are represented on the Standing Committee which will debate the Bill in due course? The Committee should consist of 25 members at the very least. Will he accept that point, regardless of the fact that there are only eight Government Back Benchers from Scotland?

Mr. Newton: The membership of Standing Committees is of course a matter for the Committee of Selection. I have no doubt that its Chairman will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has the Leader of the House seen press reports suggesting that the 130 river clean-up schemes submitted by the National Rivers Authority and passed to the Secretary of State for the Environment have been reduced to 29?
Is he aware of the tremendous anxiety of my constituents who have been told by the NRA that without Government intervention the clean-up of Stock's beck, a river polluted by dyes and sewage effluent, will have to wait until well into the millennium, until 2005? Will the Leader of the House press his right hon. Friend, who is sitting alongside him, to make an urgent statement on his plans for river clean-ups?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who, with his usual diligence, is in his place, will consider that point.

Westminster City Council (Auditor's Report)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement in response to the question raised during points of order yesterday—whether the Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to direct the auditor to publish the information that he has obtained in the course of his audit.
The issue arises out of the provisional findings of the district auditor in relation to allegations of misconduct at Westminster city council. Those findings were set out in a statement issued by him earlier today.
The district auditor is, by statute, independent. He is appointed by the Audit Commission to carry out an external audit of a local authority's accounts but, once appointed, he is not subject to direction by the Government or, except in certain limited circumstances, by the commission. He acts wholly independently. This is the most important democratic safeguard. His duties are laid down in statute and amplified in the code of audit practice which is approved from time to time by the House.
One of his duties is to consider objections made by electors against an authority's accounts. In the present case, he received objections in relation to decisions taken by Westminster city council during 1987 on its designated sales programme. It is alleged that decisions taken by the council and expenditure incurred in pursuing those decisions were unlawful. It is alleged in particular that the purpose of the council's policy was to retain political control of marginal wards.
Those are very grave allegations. It is right that they should be treated with the utmost seriousness, but the district auditor has made it clear that his view of the allegations is provisional, and that all the interested parties have an opportunity to challenge that view. If the allegations are proved, I shall have no hesitation in condemning the behaviour. In the meantime, the rights of those accused must be protected. I repeat, none the less, that, if the allegations of unlawful expenditure and wilful misconduct are ultimately upheld, I will condemn that behaviour in this case, as I would in any other, and the law will and should take its course.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked yesterday that I should direct the auditor to publish the information gathered in his inquiries. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning promised that he would take that request away and take legal advice. He has since written to the hon. Member explaining that I have no powers to direct the auditor to do so. A copy of my hon. Friend's letter is in the Library.
I am happy to assure the House that, when the case is complete, I shall consider again the issues that the hon. Gentleman has properly raised to see whether there are any changes that I would wish to recommend.

Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make a statement in response to my point of order yesterday. Although we believe, as I think he does, that current law on the

publication of the report is wholly unsatisfactory, we acknowledge that it exists, and we believe that it should be the subject of an urgent review.
The Secretary of State is already aware that I have made it clear outside the House that the respondents mentioned in the report are of course entitled to defend themselves under due process. He should also be aware, however, that the district auditor who carried out the report said today that
this was the most wide ranging and comprehensivc inquiry ever conducted by a local government auditor".
Since no one appears to dispute the auditor's description of the events, surely the Secretary of State should now be able to condemn the designated sales policies, lawful or otherwise, which led to hundreds on housing waiting lists and hundreds of homeless people in Westminster being denied houses and homes in Westminster, as Westminster city council mocked their need by boarding up decent homes and then trying to sell them on the open market.
Surely, given the Conservative party's attitude on law and order, it is possible to condemn a crime now without prejudging the issue of who was guilty of committing the crime. Why does not the Secretary of State practise what he and other Ministers preach on the issue of law and order?
Does not the Secretary of State accept that, if the findings are upheld, this will be a case of political corruption and gerrymandering on a scale unknown in modern Britain? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] There is no parallel—Conservative Members had better understand this—for corruption on this scale. If the findings are upheld, it will also show that the Conservative party in Westminster is rotten and amoral to the core, and has abandoned the most basic principles of public morality.
Does not the Secretary of State also accept that his party and Government should bear substantial responsibility for—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, on the radio, there was an investigation into—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] It is a legitimate point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members might let me do my job. If a point of order is raised, I have to listen to decide whether it is indeed a point of order—and let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I hope it is.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is, Madam Speaker. Today there was an item on the radio about Tameside council, in which serious allegations were levelled against that council on the basis of the district auditor's account. Therefore, I would ask you, Madam Speaker —

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Duncan Smith: I am coming to it. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to urge the Secretary of State to make a statement about the district auditor—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That would have been a good business question to put to the Leader of the House a few minutes ago, but it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Straw: The country will see the way in which Conservative Members are so windy about the disclosure of corruption and maladministration in Westminster on a


scale that has never occurred before in modern Britain that they try gratuitously to disrupt the proceedings of the House. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Shut up.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the climate that his Government and the Conservative party have created, they must bear a substantial responsibility for what happened in Westminster? In 1990, the Conservative Government were gerrymandering grant to Westminster, just as the Conservative party in Westminster was seeking to gerrymander housing to gerrymander votes.
Surely the House and the country are owed an explanation—now—of the involvement of senior Conservative politicians and Conservative central office in the designated sales policies in Westminster.
Since the allegations were fully made public by the objectors as long ago as 1989, did Ministers really know nothing of them when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister's Question Time, in 1990 the present Secretary of State for Employment referred to Westminster council as a "stunning success"? What are we to make of the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House on 21 February 1991, in which he said:
We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice on
the issue of the poll tax
or on many other matters"?
He went on to say that Westminster council was
certainly an example to other authorities and I hope that they will follow that example."—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]
Did the Prime Minister know what was going on in Westminster when he said that, and, in the light of today's alarming revelations, how many authorities have taken his advice and followed Westminster's example down the road of corruption and maladministration?
Does the Secretary of State believe—I have given him notice of this—that the Secretary of State for National Heritage needs publicly to offer his explanation about the meeting that "Panorama" claimed he attended in 1989, where the designated sales policy was fully discussed? What else did he know about that policy, and what steps did he take to prevent it from being followed?
Does the Secretary of State understand that, in the past 14 years, there has been a most serious decline of standards of probity and public morality, and that measures must now urgently be put in place to prevent such a systematic deception and fraud of the electorate and misuse of public funds from ever happening again?

Mr. Gummer: If we are to take seriously the allegations that have been made, we will do best to confine ourselves to those matters, rather than to use the opportunity for a general rant. I therefore say to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I am taking the matter very seriously indeed.
The auditor's description of events is in front of us, and when those who have been criticised are given an opportunity to make their points, they will no doubt do so clearly, after which the auditor will make his decisions. Other legal remedies will then be available to them.
In the end, if any of the allegations are found to be true, I will, as I have said unreservedly and without distinction

between political parties, condemn them, but there is no possible way in which I can comment on bits of the various statements, or indeed refer to references in other documents which I do not have, and which the auditor specifically has insisted that I should not have.
I believe that the House should uphold two specific and clear principles.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Law and order.

Mr. Gummer: The first is law and order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the second is the right to put one's case and not be judged guilty before one has done so. That second principle is one that the House has always held especially dear.
I have two things to say to the hon. Member for Blackburn about his references to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). First, my right hon. Friend is not mentioned in the document before us. Secondly, I take the same view of my right hon. Friend as I do of the hon. Member for Blackburn —I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is responsible for the policies of Blackburn council, but I would not find it surprising to hear that from time to time he has met members of that council. Unless it suddenly becomes impossible for either of those to be reasonable positions for Members of Parliament, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has anything to reply to.
I must be careful about the length of my reply, but I must tell the hon. Member for Blackburn that he ought to think carefully about the whole history of local government all over the country before he starts believing that he can take a party political view of this.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, may I welcome very much indeed my right hon. Friend's robust defence both of due process and of the independence of the auditor? Since he is intent on looking at what lessons may be learnt and on reviewing the legislation governing district auditors, may I ask him to look particularly at the regulations governing the publication of reports, the length of time it takes to produce reports, and the length of time there is between the dates of the accounts to which objections are made and the final investigation by auditors?
May I also ask my right hon. Friend to look at the balance between two different types of accounting? Traditionally, of course, these matters were looked at in terms of financial accounting in order to try to detect, for example, embezzlement. We have moved from there to a position where accounting is very much value-for-money accounting, which of course brings into account much more political judgment and of course value judgments. Is it not therefore important to see that there are guidelines so that the proper process of democratic accountability is not undermined by the accounting process itself? Finally, may I totally dissociate myself from the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?
It seems to me grossly distasteful that someone who has a Front-Bench colleague who has been a disqualified councillor should speak in such a sanctimonious way.

Mr. Gummer: I shall seek to learn whatever lessons about the conduct of auditors need to be learnt as a result of the case, when such lessons can be learnt without interfering with the due process of auditing or of the law. I shall also take into account what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not expect to do so in such a way as to remove


from the auditor his prized possession of independence, part of which depends on his ability to decide what reports he is to make, and where and when.
That is an area of great sensitivity, and I should be loth to make or to recommend any changes that would detract from the auditor's independence. The temptations to rush to judgment are great, but it would be better for all of us if no one were to do so.

Mr. David Rendel: At various times during his statement, the Secretary of State referred to "allegations" and their seriousness. Everybody in the House, and in the country, will accept that the matter is very serious and has been properly investigated. However, surely we have got beyond talking about allegations. We now have findings—admittedly provisional, but none the less findings—by the district auditor. It is much more serious now than it was when they were merely allegations that had not yet been investigated.
The case is especially strong because, as has already been mentioned, the auditor's investigation has been lengthy, detailed and expensive, and therefore gives extra strength to the provisional findings that have been announced. Does the Secretary of State feel that the time has come to make it clear that those are provisional findings and not merely allegations?
There are two sets of people whose rights have been damaged by the failure to publish the full report straight away. First, the people in Westminster, who are facing elections shortly—

Madam Speaker: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am seeking brisk questions and brisk answers. I have heard one question after a long statement from the hon. Gentleman. Will he now conclude with a question?

Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State feel that immediate action is necessary to reform that part of the law which has prevented the district auditor from giving his full report in public now, and ensure that the rights of the people of Westminster and the Members of the House who are also clearly concerned in the matter are redressed?

Mr. Gummer: The reference to the report is based on the words of paragraph 36, which states:
My Note of provisional findings…does not constitute any decision or finding adverse to any individual.
In other words, the auditor himself does not support what the hon. Gentleman says. I wish that he had read the report more carefully and had seen that my statement had been accurate in that respect.
It is not my decision that the auditor has decided not to print and publish his report. That is his decision, and any determination to force him to do so would seem to be unsuitable in the context of a single case. When the case is complete, it will be perfectly proper for the House to consider that matter on recommendations placed before it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Bearing in mind the fact that Labour-controlled Hackney council's housing department is surrounded by allegations of corruption and incompetence, that Labour-controlled Monklands council stands accused of nepotism, incompetence and corruption, and that Lambeth council has £173 million outstanding in debt and arrears, is it not unsurprising that the

Labour-supporting Tribune magazine has described Labour councils as lacklustre, incompetent, ineffectual and rotten?

Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that it is helpful in the House to rush to judge. Much as I am tempted by my hon. Friend's references, I shall try, if I may use a quote that you, Madam Speaker, know well, to "yield not to temptation". I hope that one or two other people will try to do so as well.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has not the Secretary of State got more than a little cheek to tell us not to rush to judgment on that case affecting a Tory council when, a few years ago, Minister after Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and attacked the Clay Cross councillors because they had the guts to fight the Tory Local Government and Housing Act 1989 long before it went to the High Court? The same was true of Lambeth and Liverpool, and all those who refused to pay the poll tax on principle.
The Secretary of State and this lousy rotten Government will not condemn Westminster council because it is Tory-controlled, and because, throughout those years, the Government were working in harness with it, giving it money—loads and loads of money—to win those safe areas and wards.
The Tory Government stand condemned just as much as Lady Porter and all her mob.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman shows his usual disregard of the facts and desire to make a party political point at all costs. I merely say to him that perhaps he would accord to others the freedoms which he would jealously demand for himself and his own side.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The Opposition parties seem to think that there are some moral issues at stake. Can my right hon. Friend say what sort of morality it is that allows such allegations and accusations to be made before the full report is known?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will agree with me that we should leave the judgments until we have some conclusion as to guilt or innocence. When we receive those judgments, we should condemn unreservedly what needs to be condemned. We should not act before we are so able to do, if we are so able.

Mr. Peter Shore: I understand why the Secretary of State says that he wants to reserve judgment on the serious allegations made against named individuals in the auditor's report, but this matter also raises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, serious policy issues, the most important to which is the inability of Westminster city council to perform its proper functions as a housing authority and to deal with the scandalous problems of the homeless and those in need of urgent medical priority rehousing.
The Secretary of State must be aware that in London we have suffered for years now, in particular during the past seven or eight years, from the scandal and shame of cardboard city and homeless people lying in the doorways up and down the Strand, only a few hundred yards away. We have to suffer these outrages at a time when hundreds of dwellings that would otherwise have been available for homeless people and people in need of urgent medical


priority rehousing have been denied them because of the policies pursued by the council most particularly responsible—Westminister city council.
Incidentally, it is not only Westminster city council, but other councils, including the Stepney neighbourhood council and Tower Hamlets council, that insist on selling empty local authority properties, despite having huge requirements for dealing with homeless people and those in urgent need of medical priority rehousing.
Will the Secretary of State now issue new guidance to local authorities, telling them that, in areas where there are lots of homeless people and people in need of urgent medical rehousing, it is against national policy for them to sell off their homes simply to raise money and for private ownership purposes?

Mr. Gummer: First, the right hon. Gentleman has experience of these things, and he will remember that, when he was doing my job, he was unable to satisfy people on his own side with the housing programmes that he introduced because they were not as good as the ones that we are putting forward.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have reduced to one third the number of people who are homeless at night on the streets in London; that every single one of them every night has a bed provided, because we have seen to that; that we are providing between £70 million and £80 million over the next three years to complete this programme's next stage; and that the voluntary bodies which are concerned in this are supportive of it.
My next point comes hard for me, because it may seem to be a remark favourable to the Liberal party, but it would be an odd argument for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government should extend their controls over local authority decisions and tell two neighbourhood councils that they do not know best how to solve the homelessness problems in their area.
I am rather on the side of those who believe that we should do our best to move further towards subsidiarity, rather than against it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push me down the road he suggests. I say that in circumstances in which I do not find the housing policy of Tower Hamlets right—I have a number of things that I would like to see Tower Hamlets do differently—but when the right hon. Gentleman uses this occasion to make a gratuitous parliamentary political comment about his local council, he lowers himself.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have appealed to all hon. Members to be brisk with their questions and answers. Many hon. Members are seeking to raise questions.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is against local government finance law to buy votes by refusing to collect rents and council taxes? Is it against local government finance law and other local government laws to buy support and votes by employing one's relatives if one is a councillor? Do we not have to stop Labour councillors from doing that sort of thing?

Mr. Gummer: If there is an activity which is against the law, that would be properly reported to the district auditor, who will take the proper action. I am sure that my hon. Friend is referring to a range of activities, to which many others might be added, which many people would

want to think about. But I would not want them to think about those activities without taking due note of the seriousness of the issue that is in front of us.

Mr. John Gunnell: As a member of the Audit Commission at the time that Liverpool city council was investigated and surcharged, I know that the commission took two views which seemed to be relevant, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State would agree.
The first was that every member of the council was entitled to the fullest information about the investigations that were taking place. Indeed, it was the responsibility of the commission to see that all members of the authority in question had the fullest information. The second was that investigations carried out on behalf of the commission which revealed faults should be given the widest publicity so that everyone in local government was aware of what had gone wrong and could learn from those lessons.
In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State think that every member of the council is entitled to the 235-page report referred to in this report and to the fullest documentation? Does he agree that, clearly, the nature of the investigation and what it has revealed should be made public, so that everyone in local government and public office can learn from the events which have occurred? They will then know when someone steps over the line, if anyone does. Clearly, in this case the auditor provisionally thinks that the line has been broken.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman raises perfectly proper questions. First, I can assure him that all Westminster councillors have the full findings of the auditor. Secondly, the auditor has the right at any time to issue what he would call a public-interest report. If he decided that that was what he wanted to do before the end of any investigation, he would be able to do so. Of course, he could do it after the end of the investigation, and that might seem to be the best point at which to do it. It would be entirely up to him to make that judgment. I am sure that he will bear in mind precisely the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in cases of gross incompetence or considerable incompetence by a local authority, in the armoury of the district auditor and the Audit Commission they can only place a report and a recommendation, and that many millions of pounds of council taxpayers' money is being wasted? If the auditor is undertaking a review, consideration should be given to firming up the powers of the Audit Commission for the sake of many residents in areas such as Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and many of the incompetent Labour authorities where he is powerless effectively to act.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend rightly points to the fact that there are many ways in which local residents and taxpayers may find themselves damaged financially, not just by the misuse of powers but by the less than competent use of powers. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be better perhaps to consider the points which he has made after the completion of the proceedings. We may then examine them without prejudice to those concerned.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Secretary of State troubled to request—not force—the district auditor to publish the report? Is the right hon. Gentleman worried


about libel proceedings? Is it not true that the auditor has qualified privilege by virtue of his office and that anybody seeking to take action for libel would have to prove malice against the auditor to justify such a course?
Is it not also true that the Government are determined not to have the report published, and that they are determined to do nothing that would give the House and the wider public information? Is that not because they want to try their best to cover up the whole shoddy affair, so we cannot be clear whether Dame Shirley Porter is the biggest crook of the decade or of the century?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic fairness, would accept that it would be better for a decision on that matter to be made by the man who has all the facts at his fingertips. He has gone through 100,000 pages of documentation, and he has produced a large report. It seems to me that it is up to him to make that judgment.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's question would have been that which he has just asked if I, as a Minister, had asked the auditor to change his mind. Would not the hon. Gentleman have asked why, when the auditor had decided to do one thing, I as a Minister had sought to get him to change his mind? I suspect that that would be precisely what the hon. Gentleman would have asked and, what is more, the hon. Gentleman knows that.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that two issues which are raised by a reading of the provisional report into Westminster are the reports of the Poulson affair and the extraordinary examination given by the BBC this morning of the nepotism, gross incompetence and corruption in Tameside? Is it not a fact that the distinguished presenter of "Today" reminded the nation of the way in which Labour councils grossly manipulated their housing policies when he was a local government reporter in the 1950s?
That raises the question whether it is inherently virtuous to establish more responsibility and more resources in the hands of local councillors. Are not more resources needed for an auditing process which is more speedy, regular and comprehensive across all councils, which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) knows are currently primarily under his party's control?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will allow me to excuse myself from answering the first part of his question and come to the points about the changes which he might like. Those are precisely the issues which I would have thought proper to consider with great care when the due process is complete. It is obviously true that anybody looking at the matter would want to consider speed and the ability to audit effectively, and also the way in which such procedures could be made more relevant. Those are precisely the issues which I will examine at a point when those issues would not prejudice the present process.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the circumstances in Tameside council and the running of its homes are totally unsatisfactory? However, the trustees of the care trust—of which I am a member, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests—and the council asked for independent financial advice as soon as they were aware of any

irregularities. When that independent financial advice did point to irregularities, they then asked the district auditor to carry out a full investigation. The district auditor carried out that investigation and his report was published.
Following the publication of that report, the council also published a report since additional information was needed. Therefore, it made every endeavour to get the whole issue into the public domain. Following that, steps were taken by the directors to take disciplinary action. While the whole situation is unsatisfactory, the attempts to clear it up were done with complete openness. I hope that there will be now the opportunity for those homes to be run efficiently.

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make those points. I am sure that he would expect that all those who are involved would have the opportunity to put their case, and to do so without prejudice. I believe that that ought to happen whenever such a situation occurs. That is why I make no comments in condemnation or otherwise about the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, any more than I do about the case about which I made the statement.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has adopted exactly the same approach to this matter as he has adopted towards the case of Hammersmith, and the financial scandals which happened there at a time when Hammersmith council was led by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Would not the logical conclusion from what we have heard from the Opposition today—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman made reference to my time as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. There was an audit investigation which completely exonerated all elected—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I will try to call the hon. Gentleman if he makes some movement during this cross-questioning.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be entirely wrong for the Labour party to condemn the hon. Member for Pendle before the final investigations are known, as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Mr. Gummer: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case which is currently before the courts, in precisely the same way as it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of a process which has not even reached the first of its public hearings.

Mr. Prentice: The Minister invited the House earlier not to rush to judgment. Is it not the case that, as far as Westminster council is concerned, the Conservatives never make any judgments at all? Was there not a deafening silence at the time of the 15p cemetery deal, and nothing was heard from the Government when Dame Shirley Porter was sacking senior officers right, left and centre?
What will people think of the nauseating double standards of this performance? Is it not the case that we are invited not to pass judgment where the Conservative flagship of Westminster is concerned, but that the Conservatives rush to judgment at the merest tittle-tattle about any Labour authority?

Mr. Gummer: Anybody hearing this exchange would notice that a single standard of judgment—saying that people are innocent until they are proved guilty—has been clearly used by the Government, and by most sensible people throughout the House.

Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one definition of nauseating double standards could be a person who has not yet read a report, but makes a judgment on it; who has not yet learned a final legal decision, yet comments on it; who has not yet heard the views of the person who has been criticised, but condemns them; and who has a Front-Bench spokesman who has been disqualified? Is that not a good definition of nauseating double standards?

Mr. Gummer: I would prefer to keep to the details of the report and to try to ensure that the due process is continued.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does the Secretary of State recall that, eight years ago, 47 Liverpool councillors were at a similar stage in the process with the district auditor? Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that the crime for which those 47 Liverpool councillors were surcharged and disqualified at that time was that they had failed to set a rate on the due date? It was a mistake, and that mistake cost the city council £106,000. Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that nowhere in the report was there any suggestion of corruption, gerrymandering or of improper action, other than ineptitude in setting that rate?
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Secretary of State encourage his colleagues on the Government Front Bench to make the type of comments that were made all the way through the process during which those councillors fought the surcharge up to the House of Lords? Why are his colleagues so reticent about Westminster city council when, for almost two years, they damned Liverpool city councillors over that fundamental error?

Mr. Gummer: I should not like to comment on the nature of a mistake which means that one Misses the date for fixing the rates. I have made a clear statement that, if the allegations were proved true, I would utterly condemn the actions, and I would expect the due process of law to continue to its proper end. I cannot think that any sensible person could say more in the light of what the district auditor says in the document which he has issued today. That is a position which the hon. Member would have expected in any circumstances. I hope that he will take the same position today.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Westminster council remains one of the best housing authorities in London compared with its neighbours, which have a sorry record in dealing with homelessness, dilapidation, arrears and empty properties? Will he confirm that it has never been the intention of Government legislatiion to make it a crime to increase home ownership and improve diversity of tenure in our council housing estates?

Mr. Gummer: I think that I ought to keep clearly to what I said and not make any specific comments about Westminster. I am proud that 1.8 million people now own their homes who would not have owned them if it had not

been for the right to buy. The right to buy was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party until Labour Members found opposing it politically so disadvantageous that they had to agree with it. Except for those general comments, I ought to keep myself free of any comments on Westminster.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Regardless of the individual culpability of members of Westminster city council, and bearing in mind the district auditor's findings on the management, control and administration of the housing department of Westminster city council, will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to review the interpretation that the council has traditionally put on its obligations to house the homeless?
Will he bear in mind the attitude of that council over many years, including the period in question, which has been to offload its responsibilities towards the homeless on to neighbouring councils, including my own? Will he show the same regard for the rights of individuals who are homeless as he shows for the rights of Dame Shirley Porter and his Conservative colleagues?

Mr. Gummer: Of course there is a good deal of movement into Westminster from outside. I have already announced that, during this month, I shall publish a consultation document on homelessness. The fact that it is to be published has been welcomed by Shelter and other organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to see the terms and conditions under which we shall be operating.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the same rules apply in Scotland? Does the Audit Commission have the power to investigate the nepotism, the jobs for the boys and the allocation of funds on the basis of religion, all of which are so rife in Monklands district council?

Mr. Gummer: I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to be in touch with my hon. Friend on that matter. I think that in general it is true that, if any local elector, ratepayer or council taxpayer feels that there has been some misuse of funds, he can ask the district auditor to investigate. That is the position, and that is what we in the Department of the Environment in England certainly recommend when there is such a complaint.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be bad enough if we were dealing only with matters of local government finance and homelessness—serious as those matters are—but we are dealing with matters of gerrymandering and electoral fiddles and fixes. They are not isolated. There are reports which show that 4 million or so people are missing from electoral registers in the United Kingdom. Most of them have disappeared from the register during the period of operation of the Government.
That position should be examined. The reason why we should have the report in front of us is that we as a House should have special responsibility for matters of electoral registration, electoral rights and equity between electoral areas. That is what the report has revealed is wrong, and what we should see the details of.

Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can suggest that a report which he cannot have read because he does not have a copy since the report


went only to those whom the auditors suggested, reveals or proves anything. The auditor himself has said that this is a preliminary report.
We in the House have a particular responsibility to ensure equity. On the completion of these processes, no doubt the House will want to examine whatever the final reports say in great detail. One issue which will be of considerable importance is the one raised by the hon. Gentleman. I raised it and mentioned it specifically in my statement.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the director or possibly the deputy director of Westminster city council housing department attended and addressed a meeting at the end of last year of the all-party homelessness group, of which I and many Labour Members are members? He explained many of the difficulties of Westminster city council housing, particularly the influx of people from outside the capital and outside the country.

Madam Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Robathan: I am coming to the question, Madam Speaker.
We were impressed by the speech. I think that that goes for hon. Members from all parties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Westminster city council in housing homeless people is extremely good and bears comparison with that of any other council in the country?

Mr. Gummer: I have already taken the self-denying ordinance that I will not comment on the history of housing in Westminster.

Mr. Bill Olner: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people will be watching his response to questions on his statement? Is he further aware that his statement and comments and his closing around and cocooning the problems in Westminster—not allegations, but reported facts—will cause much distress to councillors of all political persuasions? There will be distress that he has not more roundly condemned the atrocious goings-on at Westminster city council. There is no doubt whatever that empty properties were boarded up and had steel doors put on them to prevent them being let to tenants. It is an absolute disgrace, and he should know it.

Mr. Gummer: I have said clearly that, if those allegations are true, they must be condemned in the roundest and fullest possible way. However, I do not believe that there is a councillor in the country who would want himself or herself to be condemned on the basis of a statement by a district auditor who has specifically said that it does not constitute the type of findings to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is no good the hon. Gentleman making that point. He is here to defend the rights of individuals to be heard. They must first be heard; then justice may be done. He will join me in ensuring that justice is done.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that several Lambeth borough councillors have been surcharged and disqualified, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)? Is he aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has appointed

the hon. Lady to be the Opposition spokesman on transport and London? Does not that suggest a double standard on the part of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Gummer: At most I think that that is tangential to the issue under discussion.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that we were dealing with "allegations" today? We are dealing with the provisional findings of the district auditor. Is the Secretary of State aware that not one person in this country will believe that he would have made such a softly, softly, approach if he were not dealing with a favoured Tory council at a time when it is led by one so close to the Tory party leadership?
Why does he not admit that, time and again, Labour Members gave warnings in the House about what was going on in Westminster—the sale of cemeteries for 15p and other malpractices—but the Tory Government, including the Secretary of State, were not interested? No doubt they were hoping that the council would be able to get away with it. Now that it has been found out, he has a chance to condemn those malpractices, which are some of the worst committed by a local authority.

Mr. Gummer: I am reminded of the comments of the former Member for Huyton about the hon. Gentleman's judgment. The district auditor himself says:
My Note of provisional findings…does not constitute any decision or finding adverse to any individual.
I have to keep to what the auditor says if his independence is to be upheld by a House that insisted upon it in the first place. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in various versions before, and it was as silly then as it is now.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Westminster city council has expressed extreme surprise at the provisional findings of the district auditor and has also regretted the non-publication of the report to the public and the media? Indeed, in a public statement, the council said:
It would have preferred the subject to be dealt with in an open manner, consistent with the highest standard of probity.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, as recently as the beginning of this week, the council implored the district auditor to publish this report in full?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for those statements. I still believe that, in defending the independence of the auditor, it is right for the House and for me as the Minister responsible for local government to allow the auditor to use his powers as he thinks fit. When he has done so, and we have come to the conclusion of that process, it would be proper for the House to consider the circumstances and decide whether a better way could be found or whether we wish to confirm the present system.
It is perfectly reasonable for Westminster city council to comment, but the House should remember that the auditor operates under rules that have been confirmed by the House, and that it ought not to change them except at the end of a process rather than in the middle of it.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why do Conservative Back Benchers insist that all councils are innocent until they are proved to be Labour councils? What will the Secretary of State do about the people who have been badly wronged—the homeless and the unhoused in Westminster? We have had a fortnight of allegations and


proof of the most dreadful misconduct by members of the Government. When will we hear a single syllable of remorse, humility or penitence from the Conservative side?

Mr. Gummer: There have been one or two cases of Labour councils not reaching the highest standards known to man. Indeed, there are cases in which they have been attacked not only by Conservative Members but by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is therefore being a little naive in making that comment.
I maintain that, when the district auditor has specifically said that his findings do not constitute decisions or findings adverse to any person, it would be very odd if those of us who do not have access to the 100,000 pages of documentation to which he has had access should try to second-guess him. I have condemned any action which has been shown to be wrong, and have said that, if the allegations turn out to be supported and are proved, no one will be tougher than I in his opposition to them or his insistence that the law should take its full course.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that up to 9,000 dwellings were designated by the housing committee of Westminster city council and endorsed by it? Does that not suggest that up to 30,000 people who were not thereby housed could be homeless? Does he have the figure for the number of persons involved? If he has not got it, will he undertake to find out from the council the number of people rendered homeless in London or dumped on other boroughs as a result of the matters mentioned in the Magill report?

Mr. Gummer: I have been careful not to be led to discuss the nature of Westminster's housing policies by some Conservative Members, because I cannot see a way in which I could do so without detracting from the independent position that the district auditor has enjoined upon all. I shall therefore do the same in the hon. Gentleman's case as I have done with my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. Ken Eastham: As we understand it, the inquiry has taken four years, and some of the figures published today seem to intimate that £21 million might be involved. It is reasonable to suppose that, with further delays and as time goes on, considerable extra interest will accrue. It is quite possible that the surcharge could even be £25 million by this time next year. Would it not be in the interests of the people who are going to be

surcharged to get the matter sorted out, rather than their having to face a bill for £25 million as against £21 million today?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that the district auditor has calculated the interest, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that issue is likely to have been drawn to the attention of those concerned on both sides. I think that he will agree that, ultimately, it is up to the auditor and to those concerned to see that the due process of law is carried through, and also that they take such advice as is reasonable for anyone in such circumstances.

Madam Speaker: We now come to the allocation of time motion—

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, about the conduct of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Earlier this afternoon, during these questions, the hon. Gentleman made a very serious allegation in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), without having given him any notice of his intention to do so.
First, will you confirm that, although it is not a rule of the House, it is an important convention that, when such allegations are going to be made by an hon. Member, notice is given? Secondly, since the allegation was wholly inaccurate, can the hon. Gentleman be given the opportunity to withdraw it?

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Madam Speaker: May I deal with the first question? Of course it is the custom in this House that, when another hon. Member has been named and is not actually in the Chamber, he or she should be given notice. It is not the case when the hon. Member is in the Chamber. In this case, I gave the hon. Member for Pendle an opportunity to answer immediately.

Mr. Nicholls: Further to that point of order and your ruling, Madam Speaker. The second point that I would have made was that in no sense did I make an allegation against the hon. Gentleman. I said that it would have been as wrong to condemn him on the basis of a preliminary report, as it would have been to condemn present council members—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt with that matter.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Huges: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were good enough to grant me an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the future of Guy's hospital. In order to prepare for it, I have sought to obtain a document, allegedly a public one, that has been produced by the local hospital trust, and circulated, including to the Secretary of State for Health, called, "The Appraisal of Options for the Future of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital."
Just as the district auditor and his document are accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, so the hospital trust is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. Lady is accountable to us. There is no other way in which we can hold Ministers and their appointees to the health service to account.
That document will not be released by the trust, which says, "Refer to the Secretary of State." The Secretary of State's office will not release it and says, "Refer to the trust." All I want to know is whether you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear, as you have done in respect of other documents, that, if it is a document on which decisions are to be made by a public body accountable to the House, it should not be circulated partially without being put in the Library of the House or made available in the Vote Office. That would enable not just me but all hon. Members with an interest in this matter and similar ones to study it. I should be grateful for your help to obtain that document.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not given me notice of that point of order, and I have no idea to which document he is referring. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I note that the Leader of the House is on

the Front Bench, and I am sure that he has taken note of that point of order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can pursue that matter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health notice of his point of order, but I am sure that she will consider it. If I may venture a bit beyond my role, I understand that the rule on documents, if it can be called that, is that, once a document has been quoted from partially, the House has the right to see the whole of it. I would need further guidance on that.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Column 156 of the Official Report for 11 January contains a typographical error about the cost of building the new Abbey Wood Procurement Executive headquarters in Bristol. I raise this as a point of order because I have been in touch with the Editors of Hansard, who tell me that that mistake can be altered in the bound version.
That serious error means that the cost of those headquarters, at £345 million, is being quoted as £315 million, which in itself is £70 million more than that previously quoted. It is a matter of public interest, and anyone who referred to Hansard and did not wait to study the bound volume, which is produced many months later, would be misled. Surely the House should have a better way of flagging up typographical errors so that people who use reference material can obtain the right figures.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to have achieved that effect by getting that point of order into Hansard.

Orders of the Day — Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill:—

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this; day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(3) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
(4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2), forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) that successive clauses should stand part of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put the single Question that each of those clauses shall so stand part.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournent of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Extra time

3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Dilatory Motions

4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Supplemental orders

5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no

notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be. permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

I see no need to detain the House with a speech of great length. In a sense, I need hardly say that I regret having to introduce the motion, since there is no doubt that had we been met with a sensible approach by the Opposition, the Bill could have been dealt with readily in a day, as we had hoped. Nevertheless, I make no apology for moving the motion, because yesterday's performance and, indeed, the Opposition's current stance on all Government business have made it quite clear that their intention is simply to bring about difficulty and delay.

Had we proceeded as we had originally hoped, we should simply have had a long and boring night of tedious and repetitious speeches in Committee to follow a long and boring day of tedious and repetitious speeches on Second Reading.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I should like to make a certain amount of progress before I give way.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it true that the judgment on the conduct of the House is in the hands of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers? On no occasion yesterday was any hon. Member pulled up for tedious repetition. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that the guidance in "Erskine May" was breached, he is reflecting on the conduct of the Chair.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): There is a range of tediousness. The Chair only rules on that which is particularly tedious and repetitious.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Comparisons with the two previous Non-Domestic Rating Bills, which are similar to the Bill before us, are instructive. The one that followed the March 1992 Budget took 98 minutes to complete its Second Reading and a further 98 minutes to complete its remaining stage—a total of just more than three hours. The second Bill, which followed the March 1993 Budget, took two and a half hours to complete its Second Reading and 20 minutes to complete its remaining stages—just under three hours.
So far, we have had five and a half hours' debate on the current Bill, and, given that we started today's debate at just after 5 o'clock, we have another five hours to debate its various stages. That means that the Bill will be subject to more than 10 hours of debate—three and a half times more than was required by either of the previous Bills. I do not believe that the charge of unreasonable behaviour against the Government can stand up.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not in his place at the moment, but the comparison that he drew yesterday with the previous Bills does not stand up. He suggested that, because those Bills, which had arisen from March Budgets, were not introduced until after the financial year had started, greater urgency was attached to them. We could have argued it in those terms, but we did not, because exactly the opposite is the case. Once the financial year has started, before it is conceivably possible to implement a proposal, rebilling will take place anyway. As a result of the autumn Budget this year, if we proceed rapidly, local authorities will be in a position to do all the work at once and send out the right bills before the financial year starts. It is entirely sensible, reasonable and desirable that that should be achieved.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sought at the end of our exchanges last night to make a similar point to that raised by her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, but she obviously had not taken full account of the consequences of the change in Budget timing.
Against that background, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to allow the Opposition to inflict unnecessary inconvenience on the House. Equally, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to allow the consequences of the further delay, so clearly sought by the Opposition, to be inflicted on local authorities and the business community.
The motion provides for the remaining stages of the Bill to be completed by 10 o'clock tonight. The form of it means that the Opposition can readily give themselves more time for what they say they need to discuss. All they need to do is to guillotine their speeches on the motion and they will then have more time for discussion on the Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that he has a responsibility other than that of just being a Cabinet Minister? He is supposed to be the Leader of the House of Commons. Is he not aware of the general feeling that the House is being treated shamefully by the Government not simply on the Bill, but on other matters and that that has led to the present non-co-operation through the official channels?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that he has a responsibility to try to mend fences? Given the shameful and contemptible way in which the Government have treated the House in the past few months, is it any wonder that delays such as that experienced last night take place?

Mr. Newton: I may touch on one aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question later. I do not believe, however, almost by definition, that the House is being treated in a shameful fashion. I do not believe that any Conservative Member believes that and, to be absolutely frank, there are an awful lot of Opposition Members who do not believe that either. They want a more sensible approach to be adopted to the management of business than the Opposition are allowing.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning set out the case for the Bill with admirable clarity on Second Reading. He dealt in detail with the scheme contained in it and described its benefit for many businesses. He also set out clearly the advantages of early enactment.
For my part, I emphasised to the House on 16 December, when I announced the business for yesterday, that the early passage of the Bill would be advantageous to local authorities and business rate payers both in giving good notice of the level of business rates for the next financial year and ensuring that authorities do not have to send out two sets of bills for the same year.
It is not a contentious measure, despite yesterday's attempt to pretend otherwise. It is not inherently complex, despite the extensive textual quotations that the hon. Member for Blackburn spun out in his speech yesterday. The House could have dealt with it in a day without difficulty, to the benefit of ratepayers and local authorities alike. It now needs to be carried through in an organised, orderly and sensible way. The motion allows exactly that to happen.
I now come back to the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised a few moments ago. I think that he used a phrase about mending fences. I acknowledge that it was perhaps significant that, in her remarks last night, the right hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made no suggestion that there had been no attempt to come to an understanding about the Bill. It cannot be said that we got to this position in some dictatorial way without trying to reach an understanding.
I wrote to the right hon. Lady on 15 December, in a way that I took to be, and certainly intended to be, both reasonable and conciliatory. I set out the case for the Bill. I set out the reasons for wanting to pass it with reasonable speed. I said that it was hard to see why this Bill should require more time than previous similar Bills or why the Opposition should want to cause difficulties for local government and the business community by delayed enactment.
I made it clear that our judgment was that that could best be achieved by carrying through all the Commons proceedings yesterday so that the Lords could consider it and it could receive Royal Assent by February, in good time for the issue of rate bills in early March. I concluded by saying that I should be most grateful to know whether that would be acceptable to the right hon. Lady and, if so, whether we could be assured of her party's co-operation.
I make no complaint about the fact that I have not had a formal reply, because the right hon. Lady conveyed her response in another way. I can say only that that could best be described as a clear indication that there was no scope for any understanding of that—or any other—kind or for discussions on how to handle the Bill. So far as I am concerned, it is up to the Opposition to decide whether they want to deal with business in the House in that way. We, as the Government, have to get on with the business. On that I rest my case and commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The overriding purpose of Parliament is to hold the Government to account; to make the Government justify and explain their actions and intentions, not for the convenience or interest of Members of Parliament, but on behalf of the people by whom we are elected and for whom we are sent here to exercise our responsibilities. That is why we are here.
Today, not for the first time in recent weeks, the Lord President referred to debates that have taken place in the House as "yesterday's performance". Let me remind the


House what yesterday's performance was. It was Members of Parliament making perfectly reasonable legitimate speeches on an item of Government legislation.
The Government are fast reaching the stage where they do not think that anybody should scrutinise any legislation that they introduce, and that we should all simply touch our forelocks and say, "Yes, guy" and let it go through on the nod. That is not why we are here, and any Member who thinks that is reaching the stage of being unfit to hold office and be a Member of the House.
I sometimes think that it is difficult during these debates, because the superlatives have so often been used before. I shall say to the Lord President in all honesty that, looking at today's proceedings, I believe that it is possibly the most dangerous guillotine that we have had before the House, certainly in years here, for one simple reason: it is the most pointless. There is no need for it. The Lord President knows that. The Government are playing games, and in so doing they are setting a dangerous precedent.
The Opposition may be dissatisfied when a Government, of whatever political shade, introduce a guillotine, but hon. Members can normally see why it has been introduced. Usually—indeed, I cannot recall a previous precedent—that reason has been self-evidently connected in one way or another with the legislation under discussion.
That connection, the purpose of the guillotine, might be thought by the Opposition to be deplorable, but it has always—to my recollection—been serious. I can discern no purpose in this guillotine whatever. I remind the House that the Government chose to curtail the debate at 10 o'clock last night. They did not choose to continue with it, as they easily could have done, just as they chose to rise early for the Christmas recess and come back slightly later than has often been the norm.
The only conceivable, even political, purpose that I can discern is that the Government might have desired to avoid the debate on the NHS, originally scheduled for today, because they have been avoiding any debate on that issue for a year. The only debates that we have had in the past three years, since 1991, have been held—as was the one a year ago—in Opposition time. It is plain that the Government are anxious to avoid scrutiny of their health policy. If that is their purpose, at least it is one which is unusual in having no connection whatever with the Bill that the Government are choosing to guillotine.
Before Christmas, the Government guillotined two Bills, each to one day's debate. In each case, the costs involved in that proposed legislation were literally hundreds of millions of pounds. One affected every British employee; the other every British business. It was the Government's action in that respect, as the Lord President and the House well know, which quite rightly led the Opposition to withdraw co-operation from the Government.
But at least we knew why those Bills were guillotined to a day's debate: they were contentious; they were embarrassing; and, however low and unworthy the purpose, there was at least the purpose that it was convenient for the Government to avoid debate on the Bills.
Today's guillotine is on a measure that again affects every British business. It deals with one of the most unpopular measures that the Government have introduced during their lifetime. In most cases, the non-domestic rate is unpopular with business, as was the poll tax with the

public as a whole. The financial implications of each year's non-domestic rating settlement are very important for business, especially for small business.
The Lord President sought to play down the significance of the Bill. He sought to imply that it was a simple matter which needed no great time spent on it. The Library has pointed out that, inevitably by its nature, the Bill is technical. In particular, the finance for the transitional arrangements, which is enshrined in the Bill, is of great importance to business, particularly small business.
Already in yesterday's debate, to which the Lord President referred so contemptuously, concern has been highlighted about how a shortfall in the rating pool might in future be dealt with. It is in present-day legislation. The Government are reluctant to write such provisions into the Bill and, instead, are calling on those scrutinising it to place their trust in the Government to act as we would hope and wish. That is not something that many of us are inclined to do these days.
It is exactly the kind of issue that is normally explored in depth in Committee. It is not only explored, but the answers to that exploration are reassessed over a period. If the assurances given by the Minister during yesterday's debate are unsound, the domestic council tax payer could be hit, or council services could be affected. That matter is of considerable importance now and in the future.
The Lord President spoke briefly last night and today about the hours of debate that such measures had previously attracted, as though that was all that mattered. What is almost more important than the specific time spent in debate, whether on Second Reading or in Committee, and what the Government are not just ignoring but sweeping aside in the debate, in a most dangerous way, as they did before Christmas, is the correlation between the period during which legislation is in the public domain and still under scrutiny and the hours of debate required.
Every hon. Member knows what happens in the ordinary process of legislative scrutiny and Committee debate. Ministers are asked questions. They are pressed to give assurances. Sometimes those assurances are thought on the spot to be unsuitable or unsound. But hon. Members take the record of those debates, the meat of those assurances and the answers to those questions back to those outside this place. They have the time to do that and those outside this place have the time and opportunty to give their scrutiny to see whether we are justified in leaving those assurances to stand.
That is perhaps the most vital part of legislative scrutiny in the House and that is precisely what is being lost when the Government try, as they are doing, to confine all the debates on the measure into one parliamentary day.
I would not myself have raised the matter, but the Lord President referred to the letter that he wrote to me before Christmas about this measure. He did not, I think I am right in saying, remind the House that the letter was received in the week after the guillotining of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contribution) Bill, not perhaps the most fruitful time to seek agreement from the Opposition to curtailing yet a further measure to a single day's debate.
I have no quarrel with the Lord President's description of the terminology of the letter. It was in a reasonable and conciliatory tone. He accepted that he called for curtailing of debate into one day, which is not usual, particularly at the start of a Session, with all of that Session before us in which to debate. He did so in a week in which debate had


already been curtailed to one day on two previous pieces of legislation and he was asking us to agree to the same procedure in the first week back after the recess.
Nor, I think I am correct in saying, did the Lord President say, when I received his letter saying that this was a non-contentious measure, that we had not seen the Bill. It was only just before the Bill was published, but it had not been published. Therefore, we were being asked to agree to a procedure which depended on our taking the Government's word that the matter was non-contentious without being able to look at any of the print, never mind the small print. But, more important, we were being asked to give such agreement when there had been no opportunity, and there was unlikely to be opportunity, particularly given the impending Christmas recess, to consult outside this place.
Hon. Members, from all parties know that it is not enough for any Member, however expert, to rely on his or her judgment about the technical detail of Bills such as this. It is an essential part of proceedings in this place that we are given time to consult outside and that those outside this place are allowed to exercise their right to make their point of view known on matters of this kind which raise technical details.
I say to the Lord President with some regret that it is strongly my view that he had no right to seek the assurances that he sought from me, any more than he had any need to do so. I should have been failing in my duty to the House if I had given those assurances.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to some extent at least, the fact that there has not previously been such a breakdown between the official channels is due to the fact that previous Leaders of the House were obviously devoted to the Government, but they played fair with the House? In particular, I have in mind the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and, long before that, the then right hon. Member for Chelmsford, now Lord St. John of Fawsley.
Everyone knows that the Leader of the House must be a member of the Cabinet, devoted to Government business. But the Leader of the House has some responsibility, which he does not seem to carry out, to ensure that the Oppositon have a feeling, however controversial a measure may be, that enough time is being given in the Chamber and in Committee fully to examine what is being put forward by the Government. That is not being done at the moment.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's contention —it is what makes the role of the Leader of the House particularly difficult, as many hon. Members recognise—that, historically, the role of Leader of the House has been to exercise his responsibility as a member of the Government but also to exercise his responsibility to the House. It is also the case that those who have built up the greatest respect as Leader of the House on both sides of the House have been those who have visibly demonstrated their concern for the House as well as their understandable responsibilities to their party.

Mr. Newton: In view of what has been said in the past few minutes and what was said earlier about mending fences, I should make it clear that I thought and intended that the tone of my letter—it did refer to the breakdown of

the usual channels at the beginning and that is why it was written—made it clear that I was seeking to bring about a situation in which we could do reasonable dealing with the Opposition on uncontentious legislation despite the difficulties that had arisen. That is not only consistent with, but properly consistent with, the role of Leader of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept the Lord President's word on that matter, but I simply say that, irrespective of the matter of the Bill, if he really thinks that it is not raising difficulties and is likely to ease the return to smoother procedures in the usual channels to ask the Opposition to curtail debate on any measure to a day when there seems to us to be no necessity for that curtailing, the Government are losing touch with what Members expect of reasonable and proper procedures of debate in the House.
The Lord President referred in his speech today, as he has done previously, to the few hours that the measure has taken in the past. That is one of the points that he made in his letter. However, he did not point out that those few hours were, as I have observed, spread over a few weeks.
Last year, the parallel piece of legislation was before the House for six weeks and then before the other place for two weeks, even though it was not published until April. Even in 1992, when the general election obviously disrupted the timetable to some extent, the legislation was before the House for four weeks and did not become law until June.
Yesterday, the Lord President said, and he referred to it in his speech today, that we should have understood that the fact that the Budget was earlier and the legislation was published before the start of the financial year, rather than after, meant that the pressures on its debate were heavier rather than lighter than in previous years. I have seldom heard such a lot of old rubbish.
Local authorities have told us in terms that they do not need to know that the legislation is on the stocks until, at the earliest, the end of February. It is turning logic on its head to say that there is less urgency about a matter that is published after the start of the financial year than about a matter that is published before the start of the financial year.
I remind the Lord President that, as my hon. Friend the deputy Chief Whip observed from a sedentary position, in the past these measures have passed through the House by agreement, but they were in the public domain and open to people to scrutinise and check for four weeks in the election year and for six weeks last year. There is plenty of time for that sort of period to elapse before local authorities or businesses need the legislation. I am sorry to have to say that the Lord President's case simply does not stand up.
We are at the start of a parliamentary Session which started late and we finished early for the Christmas recess. The Government did not even try to go on with the debate yesterday evening when they could have done so after 10 o'clock. They tell us that it was only their consideration for others, for business and local authorities that led them to press this step on us.
Businesses are none too happy with the curtailing of the timetable for this debate, any more than they were with the curtailing of the timetable for the debates before Christmas, which was also said to be in their interests. As for the notion that the Government care tuppence about the concerns and worries of local government, I imagine that they can barely keep their faces straight at the thought.
The Lord President will remember that he and I were in opposite positions when the Government introduced massive changes in housing benefit legislation with no concern whatever for the timetable of local government or for its difficulties in implementing enormously complex legislation which deprived many people, including pensioners, cumulatively of hundreds of millions of pounds. The poll tax was introduced practically over the dead body of local government and so was the non-domestic rate to which this legislation refers. We can therefore dismiss with contumely the notion that it was worrying about local government that led Ministers to propose this step.
I shall draw my remarks to a close because, like the Lord President, I do not want to detain the House. I end by returning to the point that I made at the outset: this is possibly the most dangerous precedent that the Government have yet set in a string of mishandlings of the House. The purpose of this guillotine is entrely frivolous. There is no justification or need for it. No Government have ever shown such disregard for the parliamentary safeguards that have grown up, for good cause, over the years.
I remind the Lord President—I mentioned this in our debate in the last week before the Christmas recess—that it is only three or four weeks since he and I spoke at a meeting jointly organised by "The House Magazine" and the Hansard Society, where representatives of one of the most important and financially crucial British businesses pressed him to give assurances that the House would conduct its business so that legislation could be properly scrutinised in order that we might avoid legislative error and give people time to take full account of the implications of all legislation.
The Lord President gave the assurance—since when three Bills have been taken through all their stages in the House, in effect, in three days. This is a pathetic measure, introduced by a pathetic Government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Like the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I do not want to detain the House. Although one must be thankful for small mercies, we must also take account of what the Lord President said. He said that if we take up time discussing the timetable motion we will deprive the House of the opportunity to look at the amendments.
I am a bystander in the war of attrition that is going on above my head. I repeat an offer that I have made before: I will happily run between the Front Benches and use my best endeavours to get the usual channels opened up again as soon as possible. It is of course easy for me to sound pious, but I am worried that the House may bring itself into disrepute if the problem goes on too long.
I can perfectly well understand the frustration expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, if press reports are to be believed, when he decided to implement this period of non-co-operation. I must, however, counsel the official Opposition to be cautious. It is easy to start disruption, but not so easy to stop it. It is not clear to me what the Opposition seek to achieve. If they are trying to give the Government a hard time, I will sign up for that—but I am

not prepared to sign up if we go so far as to prejudice the sensible scrutiny of legislation. I fear that that may be happening already.
There must be a temptation for the Government to retaliate vindictively. They must resist that temptation. In the short term, they must take this on the chin and try as hard as they can to get on with business without being vindictive. I must add that the action that the Government took overnight comes very close to vindictiveness.
It is not in the long-term interests of the House to suffer indefinite disruption, nor is it in the long-term interests of the legislation that we consider or of the public. I believe I am right in saying that every Bill that this House has sent to the Lords this Session has been guillotined. Is that a record of which the Lord President is proud? He may claim that it is nothing to do with him—that it is all someone else's fault—but the situation is serious.
The House must recognise that if we get into this position early in the new year we will have to think seriously about the new conjunction of the Queen's Speech and the Budget at the back end of the old year. If we do not learn the lessons of this year, there will be more trouble in future years. If the disruption continues, I foresee chaos after Easter, when major Bills come out of Committee and back here for Report and Third Reading. The Government will be forced to impose draconian guillotines on those Bills, and the House will become impossible to manage. Again, I counsel caution.
Regardless of who is to blame, I cannot contemplate with equanimity measures such as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill or the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—important Bills affecting thousands of people—being the subject of guillotines. Once this is all done and dusted we will have to step back and better consider how we conduct business in this House. I find it sad that the Jopling proposals appear to have been lost—

Mr. Cryer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kirkwood: People may have differing views about that. I hold no brief for the Jopling proposals as such, but I am willing to talk about any way of improving our procedures. The Jopling opportunity appears to have been lost, however, and that is sad.
If guillotines are to continue to be as customary as they seem to have become, we shall have to consider seriously the possibility of devolving whole areas of legislation—

Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I have noticed this increasingly common suggestion that the Jopling proposals are dead and that there is no point in further discussing them. That is true only if it is what the Government are determined to achieve. I am growing increasingly suspicious that that is the end to which the Government's tactics are directed.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is good news. Both sides are now claiming that it is only the other side that is preventing progress. I must confess that I had given up hope, but I am glad to hear that the right hon. Lady has kept the door open. Our party is certainly willing to continue to try to find common ground—

Mr. Newton: I ought to make it quite clear that I do not accept the hon. Lady's accusation, and I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman found an opportunity to provoke her to make a further intervention in which she


confirmed that she is willing to engage in further constructive discussion, with a view to implementation of the Jopling report.

Mr. Kirkwood: I find myself the only channel left open —people are channelling their remarks through me at this point. I shall continue to provide the service at no cost to Government or Opposition. I hope that after the dust settles we will return to the issue and manage some progress.
I was a little disappointed by the lack of attention that the Leader of the House paid to the guillotine motion itself. I know that it is customary nowadays to use such motions as an excuse for more political debate about the contents of Bills. I for one intend to pay more attention to the terms of the guillotine motions in these debates. I am concerned about some of the new developments incorporated in them. I know that the Lord President spent the hours between midnight and 3 am with his inky pen going through the motion bit by bit, so it was difficult for him to get it right in so short a time. That is precisely why he should not be operating in this way. Nevertheless, paragraph 1(1) takes some justification.
The right hon. Gentleman said in a casual aside—it happens to be true—that we have until 10 o'clock, so if we stop discussing the guillotine now we will have more time to discuss the contents of the Bill. By tradition, however, guillotine motions have not imposed strict timetables on the discussion of Bills such as this one, because that would prevent hon. Members from voting within the allotted period. The time for the votes is taken out of the time allowed for discussion. I consider that tactic an abuse, but the Government have begun to resort to it with increasing regularity.
The House should not allow such behaviour to pass without comment. If we are to have timetable motions, the Government must recognise the need to allow the House to express its opinion within the allotted time in a way that does not prejudice further discussion. I consider paragraph 1(1) of the motion objectionable for that reason.
Paragraph 2(2) is also extremely worrying. The Leader of the House may contradict me if I am wrong, but, as I read it, it means that several clauses can be lumped together for a single vote. The right hon. Gentleman may say that, given that the Bill is relatively small, there is no cause for concern; but the application of paragraph 2(2), willy-nilly, to a 100-clause Bill would mean one vote to dispose of all those clauses at a stroke. I understand the purpose of timetable motions to be to enable the Government to limit the time available for discusion of the various stages of legislation, but paragraph 2(2) prevents clause-by-clause consideration.
As I have said, this is a small Bill, and in this instance paragraph 2(2) may be of no moment. Nevertheless, I consider that it sets an objectionable precedent. It is new to me, but I have been looking after this side of the business for only a short time: the Leader of the House may say that it was introduced recently. I find it worrying, however, and I believe that, if the Procedure Committee considered it objectively, the Chairman would also be extremely concerned. It has been introduced overnight, without discussion, and the procedures of the House have effectively been changed: we can no longer consider clauses seriatim.
I have other worries. The Leader of the House should not allow the parliamentary draftsmen to stick in otiose bits of garbage that are of no consequence. When, for example, was the last occasion on which we required the provisions of paragraph 5(1)? When was the last occasion on which a Bill was recommitted? Not within living memory, I bet. It does the House no service to produce such unnecessary and irrelevant verbiage.
I fear that, if the difficulties between the two main parties continue, more and more Bills will be guillotined. I think that the Procedure Committee should consider a Standing Order setting out the parameters within which Governments can introduce timetable motions, and that we should engage in a full and lengthy debate on what Governments can and cannot do. This motion provides evidence that Governments are incrementally removing powers from the House by imposing timetable motions in a draconian, unnecessary and unjustifiable manner. The House should vote the motion down.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hernsworth): I am not one of the hon. Members who bored the Lord President of the Council so much yesterday—not because my speech coruscated and was laced with wit, but because so many hon. Members wanted to speak and there was so much to discuss that I could not get in.
Only Opposition Members were speaking yesterday, but these are very serious issues. What worries me is the arrogance of power, which we saw earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Leader of the House is leaving; he has had enough."] Hang on. What worries me is the arrogance of power that allows Governments—or councils, as in the case of Westminster—to think, regardless of the individuals involved, that they can do anything that they want. The Bill involves a fundamental philosophy which must be discussed: the philosophy of democracy.
In his "Politics", Aristotle said—this is a rough translation—that those parties were best to which everyone brought the booze. Similarly, those Governments are best to which everyone contributes ideas; yet the way in which this tax is organised means the increasing separation of local businesses from their councils. They are no longer a fundamental part of what is happening, and some of us consider that very serious.
Labour Members engaged in an excellent debate at their party conference. It is a shame that the Lord President was not there: he would have been excited by the speeches about regional government. We strongly believe in devolution and regional government, and we think it deplorable that, since 1979, the Conservative Government have taken more and more power to the centre. They have increasingly decided that Whitehall and Westminster should govern the people—in my case, the people of Yorkshire.
That is clearly nonsensical. When the people of Whitehall and Westminster—whose experience relates to London—see problems and what they consider to be solutions in London, they send those solutions flying out to the regions, where they are totally inappropriate. We have seen that happen in education: if the Secretary of State has his way, all schools will be accountable to a central body provided and staffed by Whitehall, and appointed by the Minister. We have seen it happen in hospitals, too: increasingly, the Secretary of State has made appointments


for political reasons. I can think of no other reason to justify the creation of trusts such as those in our area, which contain not a single Labour sympathiser, although the vote is 80 per cent. Labour. It is an odd situation; it may have come about by chance, but it may have been created deliberately.
Now there is to be yet another centralisation. The Home Secretary has traditionally governed arguably the worst police force in the country: the Metropolitan police do not compare with the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to know how what he is saying relates to the guillotine motion.

Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has vast experience of local government, having served as chair of the Yorkshire planning committee for four years. Having sat through yesterday's debate, does he agree that it is astonishing that the Minister of State has been unable to explain properly to the House the reason for the fundamental policy shift on the proposed legislation for this year—as opposed to the provisions piloted through the House last year by his predecessor, now Secretary of State for Wales? We are still waiting for an explanation. We oppose the guillotine motion because we need time to listen to the Government's views, so that we can then go out and consult local authorities and local businesses about the proposals.

Mr. Enright: I, too, find that astonishing.
Let me explain what I mean about centralisation and devolution. This is yet another example of the way in which taxes have been centralised: centralised business taxation is now taken for granted. That is quite wrong. On the continent, exactly the opposite has been happening. For example, in the mid-1970s, France was more centralised than any other country—schools there all taught geography at the same time and everyone knew exactly what was happening in the schools al any given time. However, with regard to taxes and policies, France has increasingly devolved power whereas here the Government have gathered it all unto themselves.
Our argument is that the nature of the business tax is fatally flawed. The way in which it is collected and imposed has nothing to do with the services that it is supposed to render. It seems that business taxes should once again be devolved to local councils. One can think of many spheres in which local businesses would be delighted to have it so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that I was chair of planning in West Yorkshire. I recall explaining to representatives of local businesses that we could carry out certain schemes such as pedestrianisation and the building of bypasses on which industry was extremely keen but we made it clear that business would have to pay. It led to constructive dialogue. We did not always agree but at least we kept talking and, by doing so, we knew why the taxes were being raised and what could be done with them. That is no longer the case because now the Government, or nanny in the form of the Minister for Local Government and Planning, knows best.

Mr. Vaz: Nan.

Mr. Enright: Nan knows best, indeed. That is not clearly desirable because it is not democratic.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but he is discussing the substance of the Bill, for or against. We are considering only the timetable motion.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly not intrude on the time allotted to discussing the Bill. I shall deliberately absent myself because I shall have made some of my substantive points.
It was important that we should have discussed such issues in Committee last night because they are crucial. By guillotining the Bill—

Mr. Clive Betts: The points that my hon. Friend is making are relevant not only to his but to all our constituents and they are very important and numerous, as he has amply outlined. So many issues are potentially affected by the legislation that a timetable motion that constrains debate carries the risk of our not being able to discuss thoroughly all the issues that could affect the interests of all our constituents.

Mr. Enright: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
One important aspect which we were not able to discuss and which is a further argument against the guillotining of the Bill is the collection of the business tax. We need time to probe the Government's intentions in that respect. At the moment they have helpful district and county councils to collect it for them or, to put it another way, to do their dirty work for them. They do so at a reasonable cost but we hear a whisper—one that we should have wished to probe if there had been no guillotine—that collection is to be privatised. That is a dangerous and threatening situation—

Mr. Betts: Group 4, will lose a bit more.

Mr. Enright: Not only Group 4, although we know that it is somewhat spendthrift and difficult to employ. I shall make no more of that because you would quite rightly stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Gladstone set up a magnificent civil service to stop corruption. Since that time, the probity and honesty of our civil service has been the equal of any other. It is perhaps worth going through a list of United Nations Governments and asking which of them are corrupt.

Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that yesterday not a single Conservative Member found time to come to the Chamber to debate this important subject although it is Conservative Members who claim to speak for British business? Many Labour Members were prepared to speak on behalf of British business. It is extremely important that we have enough time to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Enright: I was especially disappointed yesterday that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)— I mention him precisely because he is not here—was not in his place because he is always talking about his diligence in voting and how awful local government is. He is absent I know not where, but I should be grateful if the Government Whips could get him here so that he could be taught about democracy.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Could I appeal to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) not to intervene on his hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) at the very moment he is beginning to be interesting? I thought that the hon. Member for Hemsworth was about to embark on a tour of the world beginning with Guinea-Bissau. I should not wish to deny him the opportunity of giving us a perspective on local government there from his experience. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leicester, East could refrain from intervening when his hon. Friend is halfway there.

Mr. Enright: I shall first give the Minister a lesson in pronunciation. Guinea-Bissau is pronounced "Guinea-Biss-ow"—that is how it is pronounced not only by the locals but by good British chaps and chapesses. The Minister is correct—in Guinea-Bissau the people have the advantage that collection is carried out at the base and everyone has a say in what happens at small meetings in the villages. It is against such a system that the Government are fighting. It is an absolute disgrace that in this century a guillotine is proposed by uninterested people, which cuts to the heart of democracy. I hope that the guillotine motion will be defeated as it deserves to be.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: The Liberal Democrat party spokesman confused me. I do not know where he has been, but I can tell him that the issue began with the Budget and the curtailment of the time allocated to debate it. If he will listen, I shall go further.
There has clearly been concern about the allocation of time for parliamentary business and scrutiny. A story currently doing the rounds is that the controversial Child Support Agency, for example, will be debated for an hour and a half. I do not know whether Government Back Benchers are happy about that, but I hope that the Lord President will accept it when I say that we do not regard it as satisfactory when a controversial issue is to be debated for only one and a half hours. I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to participate. It is merely another subject on which debate is being curtailed. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, will you please ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to speak through you if he wishes to do so, but to stop heckling me?

Mr. Kirkwood: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the statutory instrument that is required to introduce the changes announced on 22 December, he should know that if the statutory instrument is introduced under the affirmative order procedure, the time limit is one and a half hours. That has always been the case. There is no time limit on statutory instruments.

Mr. Cunningham: If that is the case, I suggest that the Minister prepares another Bill and that we hold another debate on the Child Support Agency.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the concern was about the Local Government Finance Bill, not another Bill or an order.

Mr. Cunningham: I accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to prove that there is insufficient parliamentary time to debate some important issues.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the most distinguished former council members to serve in the Chamber. He was a Coventry councillor for almost 20 years and was the leader of that council for four years. Does he agree that it would have been sensible for the Government to have arranged a proper and appropriate Committee stage—say, in a fortnight's time—which would have given people such as my hon. Friend the opportunity to go back and discuss with local business people, with the local chamber of commerce and with the local authority the enormous and fundamental changes proposed in the Bill? Would my hon. Friend have liked that opportunity to continue the discussions that he has had over the past 20 years in local government in Coventry?

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation.

Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) would wish to inform the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that he accompanied a delegation from Coventry to talk to me about standard spending assessments earlier this week. The delegation was extremely well informed and we had a constructive meeting. However, the delegation said nothing about the Bill. Its members all knew that if they wished to raise such issues they were free to do so.

Mr. Cunningham: We were perfectly clear at that stage what we wanted to talk to the Minister about and, as I said to him at the time, we were treated most reasonably. However, being a fairly shrewd character, I added that we must wait and see what emerged from our discussions. That is the point and that leads me back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said and to my reasons for opposing the guillotine. I must tell the Minister that before Coventry city council reached that stage the onus was on it to conduct widespread consultation with, for example, business rate payers. The Minister's own rules and regulations require us, as a council, to carry out those consultations. That is why I am so concerned about the guillotine. There are many issues that affect the business community in Coventry and extensive consultation is required. As the House knows, many small business people are struggling to keep their businesses afloat and if some of those people go under jobs will be affected.
It is vital that the Bill be given enough time for adequate debate so that we can scrutinise it properly. Legislation has been rushed through the Chamber in the past and discussion has been curtailed. There has often not been adequate consultation or scrutiny of the effects of Bills on public services and on the public in general. People with small businesses in my constituency often come to me because they have difficulty paying their business rates. Clearly those people would expect me to vote against the guillotine, so that their concerns and the issues important to them can be raised in the House—I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
Another reason for voting against the guillotine is the longer-term effect on local authorities' ability to charge adequate rates and to raise budgets. The Government pass legislation, but they do not give adequate resources to implement it. The Minister says that he may compensate, but he does not say that he will compensate fully. That issue arose last night and it needs further scrutiny. It is


important to many people, not only to the small business men who pay the business rates but to many local authorities. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister has tried to suggest that because the Coventry delegation managed to arrange a meeting with him on our SSA, yet did not raise the issue of the national non-domestic rate, there is no such issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) was here last night when we heard the Minister reading out comments about the dissatisfaction of the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce with the level of business rates some years ago, when those rates were set locally. But, when challenged, the Minister did not know whether the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce was dissatisfied with this year's business rate levels. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is proof that adequate consultation has not taken place? It is not surprising that we do not yet know the opinion of Coventry chamber of commerce on the national business rate, because the Minister did not know whether there was any problem with the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce.

Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend has touched on the nub of the problem. He will know that the Government were trying to curtail the debate last night and that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who wound up the debate, refused to give way to any of the Members who were seriously concerned, except my hon. Friend himself.
While we are on the subject of consultation, I ask the Minister when he last consulted the people in local chambers of commerce who represent the small business community—I am not talking about the CBI—and what their views were. That question was not answered last night. That is probably why the Under-Secretary of State would not give way to Opposition Members who wanted to ask questions.
I am worried about the timetable under which we shall be allowed to debate the Bill. I am concerned for the small business community, because there has been a lack of consultation. We have been given no answers about who was consulted about the business rate and who was not. I am worried, too, about the Bill's other possible effects. The Minister has conceded that he has not yet worked out a formula or procedure for compensating business ratepayers. That was why he rejected an Opposition suggestion about using "may", as opposed to "shall", in the Bill.
There is extreme concern about the Bill and about the effects of the unified Budget. For the reasons that I have already explained, I shall join my hon. Friends in opposing the guillotine.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on his speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his wide-ranging contribution to the debate. I assure him that the Leader of the House did not leave the Chamber because he found my hon. Friend's speech boring. Indeed, he left at such an early stage of that speech that he could not have had time to find it boring. Only those of us who stayed and listened to the full speech were in a position to make such judgments.

Mr. Thomas Graham: One reason why I am here is that I was told

that this was a wonderful debate and that Labour Members' contributions were excellent and well worth hearing. I am surprised that the Leader of the House is not here to listen to the Opposition's eloquent arguments. The Prime Minister tells us that we must go "back to basics", and I wonder why we do not do that. Why did the Government increase VAT to 17·5 per cent., with 2·5 per cent. going to local government? That 2·5 per cent. should now be taken off and then we might get more common sense out of the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. "Back to basics" could also be interpreted as meaning, "relevant to the subject under discussion".

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the subject under discussion is the Opposition's efforts to persuade the Government to listen a little more to what we say about necessary changes to their proposals. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has been forced to leave the Chamber, because I want to comment on some of the things that he said when he opened the debate. The Leader of the House has returned —he has clearly anticipated dangers!
Every hon. Member knows that the fundamental constitutional role of the Opposition is to oppose. Constitutional law books suggest not that the Opposition might or should oppose the Government but that they have a duty to do so. If I understood the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he agreed with that proposition. It is therefore difficult for Labour Members to understand his argument that there is a means by which the Opposition should carry out their constitutional duty.

Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition have a duty not only to oppose but to do so constructively? Labour wished to propose constructive amendments, such as those that appear on the amendment paper, which would strengthen the Bill and make it more acceptable to the business community. The Government have decided not to allow us to help them with the problems that clearly exist in the Bill, which we would have addressed if our amendments had been properly debated.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend developed an argument that I hoped to develop. Notwithstanding his intervention, I shall still try to do so.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has returned to his place because I wish to invite him to consider some of the comments that he made in opening the debate. The Opposition must decide how to oppose any measure. It is not for a Minister to say what tactics the Opposition should use.
The Leader of the House laid great store on the fact that previously similar legislation went through in a matter of three hours on one occasion and rather less on another. He should know from his experience that what happened last year or the year before is irrelevant. If a similar measure had been proposed last week, it would not have mattered how long it had taken to dispose of it because Opposition Members are now considering how best to exercise our constructive role in opposing Government measures. That is simply what we are seeking to do.
I invite the Leader of the House, who is a fair-minded man, to read his speech carefully—not necessarily in a darkened room because I should like him to read what he


had to say and think about it—away from the excitement of the debate and from the need for the Government to pass the Bill. He said not only that the Government should determine how they manage their business but that Ministers should comment on how the Opposition go about their role of constructively opposing Government measures. If I understood him correctly—I shall give way if he wants to correct me—he was saying that the Leader of the House knows best. I know that he would not advocate a one-party state, but he is suggesting that we might move to that model of so-called democracy whereby the Government can push through measures with a rubber-stamp Opposition whom the Government know will accept what the Government want. We have a vigorous constitution and a vigorous Opposition and it is for the Opposition to decide how much time we allocate to opposing Government measures.
The motion is the Government's frustrated response to the fact that we have a different opinion about how we should oppose measures from the Government. That is how it should be; we should have a different role from the one that the Government allot to us. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider his approach to the motion because he does not know what is best for the Opposition. It is a dangerous and slippery slope when a Leader of the House introduces such motions and tells the Opposition that the Government know how we should be opposing Government proposals. It is for the Opposition, and for them alone, to decide that.

Mr. Clive Betts: Unfortunately, I did not hear the Leader of the House's opening speech because I was busy in a Committee, but I heard his comments last night. He could not have been here for most of yesterday's debate for him to have made the comments that he did, implying that Members were wasting time and not addressing real issues.
I was concerned about the comments that the Minister made in winding up the debate last night. I read Hansard today to confirm that he said that Opposition Members' concerns were synthetic—or at least that is what his Auntie Flora in Aberdeen would think. I do not have an Auntie Flora to get advice from.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I know that my hon. Friend does not have an Aunt Flora in Aberdeen, but he has an Auntie Aggie in Sheffield, who has asked me to pass him her best wishes for a very happy birthday today. She is delighted that he is making a speech on his birthday, working on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. Betts: I thank my hon. Friend and note that he has not led his usual rendering of "Happy Birthday" in the Chamber.
The Minister said yesterday that the debate had been spurious, which was an ill-chosen forms of words to have used and which he might like to reconsider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made an interesting point last night when he asked why, if the Government had not been concerned that the issues would not need lengthy debate, they had tabled the 10 o'clock business motion, which they chose not to move.
I noted that between 5.30 pm and 9.50 pm yesterday no Member chose to speak from the Government Benches. That is their choice. They did not regard the issues as important, but we did.

Mr. Vaz: I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. Does it surprise him to learn that while Labour Members were toiling on the Bill, in the absence of Conservative Members, the Secretary of State was dining in the Churchill Room on lamb cutlets?

Mr. Betts: I was not aware of that, but I am disappointed that the issue is of so little importance to the Minister that he preferred lamb cutlets to the debate.
The issue could still be resolved if Ministers would address the points that we have raised continually. Yesterday, the Minister gave assurances that appear in Hansard and in winding up he made a clear comment. He said that any shortfall will be made up. If that is Government policy, we merely want that policy put into the Bill. If that were done, there would be no need for additional scrutiny and debate on many aspects of the Bill. While that commitment from the Government is not forthcoming by way of a change to the Bill, we will argue strongly that we cannot be certain that in one, two or three years' time the shortfall will be made up. Of course, we may have a different Government in three or four years. While the Government remain in power, we cannot be certain that, unless that provision is included and the Bill is amended, any shortfall that occurs as a result of the transitional arrangements will be made up by the Government and not by local authorities through increased council tax or by a reduction in local authority services. If we cannot be assured of that, we want additional time for debate and we do not accept the guillotine.

Mr. Doug Henderson: For the past two days of parliamentary business—the past three days, if one considers the time devoted to the money resolution on Tuesday—the House has seen the Government show a callous disregard for our democratic procedures and a callous presumption of the intentions of the House by discussing the money resolution on Tuesday before the substance of the Bill was debated.
The way in which the Government have tried to force through the business is a contempt of the House. They have forced the business through without giving organisations around the country an opportunity to comment on the Bill, having heard the arguments on Second Reading, which would have enabled representations to be made to the Government and to the Opposition, and, perhaps, would also have given organisations the opportunity to suggest amendments.
The procedure that we are now discussing is completely unnecessary. We are using time to discuss the guillotine motion that we could have used to discuss aspects of the Bill which are important to hon. Members. We are doing that because the Government cannot even carry the support of their own Back Benchers.
Last night, during five hours of debate, there was only one intervention from one Back-Bench Conservative Member. In past years, all of us have had to listen to Conservative Members endlessly attacking local government and endlessly exaggerating the burdens on rates, yet last night we did not hear a whimper. That indicates either


that Conservative Members have recognised the folly of their arguments or that they have so little confidence in those on their Front Bench that they are embarrassed to come along and present those same arguments.
The Government did not have the confidence to continue the debate after 10 o'clock last night, just when I thought that we had reached the point of having disposed of some of the general principles involved in the Bill, and had the opportunity to move on to some of the detail in Committee. I did not like that procedure. The way in which it prevented organisations and Members of the House from making representations during that gap between Second Reading and Committee—either on the Floor of the House or upstairs—was an affront to democracy. Even though it was the Government's procedure, they did not have the confidence to take the argument beyond 10 o'clock.
That is one reason for such an unnecessary motion this evening. The other reason is one that was advanced by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She made it clear that the sinister reason for the guillotine motion is to kill a possible argument on the national health service. The Government are afraid to come to the House and argue about such an important service.
On Second Reading, the Government claimed that it was necessary to have the Second Reading in January to meet local authority Treasury billing needs. I accept that, because of a November Budget, it is more sensible to begin dealing with the business rate in January, because it avoids the situation of the past two years, in which retrospective additional costs have been incurred and businesses have become unstable because they have been unable to predict the level of commitment that they would have to make to business rates.
However, the Opposition's argument is not to do with the calendar timetable. It would have been possible to publish the Bill at the same time and to have the Second Reading yesterday, with a money resolution following it.
The timetable before the House is unacceptable, because it is undemocratic and unnecessary. It is undemocratic because the money resolution was tabled on Tuesday night, before the issues of principle were discussed on Second Reading. It was presumptuous of the Government to adopt that procedure. As was pointed out yesterday, apart from the poll tax debate in 1991, this is the only time that this Government have had the effrontery to table the money resolution before Second Reading.
In administrative terms, the timetable is unnecessary to meet the needs of the local authorities. If one communicates with local authority treasurers, it becomes clear that the bills for business rates are not normally sent out until February. I received a document from Birmingham city council, the largest metropolitan council in the country, which showed that it does not send out the bills for business rates until mid-February. Therefore, a timetable that would have taken business beyond the end of January would have been able to meet the needs of a typical council such as Birmingham.
We do not even need to hear evidence from Birmingham city council, because the document produced by the Department of the Environment and sent to chief executives of local authorities on 30 November, which I cited last night, made it clear that provisional calculations would be made in January. Nevertheless, the Department of the Environment expects authorities to recalculate the amount that they will receive in contributions from the

business rate between January and March. Even the Department of the Environment has acknowledged that the Bill could have lasted beyond January and still have met the assumption on which it based its regulations.
We could have adopted a procedure that involved a Second Reading yesterday, a money resolution following it, Committee either on the Floor of the House in 10 days or in two weeks' time, or Committee upstairs. That would have allowed time for Royal Assent to be given—to a Bill which might have been modified in the light of representations and discussion in Committee—in February, and which not only would have met the needs of councils such as Birmingham, but would have met the administrative arrangements that the Department of the Environment anticipated would apply. That would have been a sensible procedure, which would have been acceptable to the Opposition and acceptable to the House.
Of course, the Bill is not as straightforward as it was in the past year. Government Members who argued that it is essentially the same Bill are quite wrong. Although I was sufficiently courteous to allow the Minister to intervene in my speech last night, the Under-Secretary of State, while drawing a comparison between the Bills of the past year and this year, was not sufficiently courteous allow me to intervene in his speech to correct his misapprehension. He will not be surprised that I shall now take the opportunity to correct that misapprehension.
Last year's Bill dealt essentially with one issue, which was that business rates should be frozen at the level of the rate of inflation. The arguments were about whether it was appropriate to limit the increases to the rate of inflation. That was discussed on Second Reading, and during the 10-day period between Second Reading and remaining stages, which were taken on the Floor of the House, several different organisations made representations to me.
This year's Bill is much more complicated. It involves a discussion of the future structure. It raises the question whether there will be further transitional relief in 1995, which is the year after the next revaluation of business rates. It raises the question of what will happen if there is transitional relief. Under the current arrangements, if businesses are given transitional relief, the aggregate sum given in relief is made up by the Government before the rating pool is distributed to local authorities. Therefore, all other things being equal, local authorities themselves neither win nor lose under the current procedure.
Because of some clauses in this Bill, there is no guarantee that that will happen in future. There is no guarantee that transitional relief will be granted in the first place. If it is granted, there is no guarantee that the sums needed to make up the rating pool will be contributed by the Department.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that, even if both happen, the Government will take that into account in calculating the external financing limit for local government, which governs the sum given to local government from outside sources. These are important issues that affect the ability of every council to make decisions on their chosen level of provision and to meet that level of provision.
A further important issue that emerged in representations made to me last year and in preliminary representations by some organisations to me this year is the whole question of who should determine business rates. It seems that, increasingly, organisations over a wide spectrum, from chambers of commerce to the Institute of


Directors, to councils throughout the country, to many businesses, believe that it is far better that business rates are determined locally than centrally, for all the reasons discussed in yesterday's Second Reading debate. That issue is central to what happens to business rates and the rating pool. Many organisations would have wanted to make repreentations on that, had that been possible.
I do not want to prolong the debate on this motion for longer than necessary, because we wish to discuss many other important items this evening. The timing of the legislation and the Government's introduction of it without proper consultations through the usual channels are unacceptable to hon. Members, and an abuse of our democracy in this House. They have deviated from previous procedures that hon. Members accepted as reasonably satisfactory.
This establishes a dangerous pattern of contempt for those workable and tried and tested procedures. The rush with which we have had to deal with the legislation is unnecessary. We could have dealt with it in a satisfactory way, which would have allowed proper representation and discussion, as well as the completion of the Bill in sufficient time for local authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
Those are only some of the points that my hon. Friends have raised in their speeches this evening. The Government's conduct has been wholly reprehensible and unacceptable, so we shall oppose the guillotine motion tonight.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Today we have had a continuation of the cabaret which marked yesterday's debate. We have had what I can describe only as the performance of the Tea Room trotters. They are the hon. Members who are called out of the Tea Room to keep the debate going and then dispatched back, no doubt like the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), to eat his bacon sandwich.
In they come, back they go. They try to make their speeches, and whenever they look as though they are faltering, which is fairly frequently, up pops the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to prompt them and bring them back on track. Indeed, I am surprised that he did not have some visual aids with him to help them. Perhaps he might have had a score card for technical expertise, which I fear would have been fairly low in most cases. Certainly they would have scored higher on artistic impression.

Dr. John Reid: Get on with it.

Mr. Curry: That is typical of the hon. Gentleman. He has spent a day and a half not getting on with it, yet he sits there and urges us to get on with it. The Opposition have waffled, wasted time, digressed and completed a little global tour, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is not even concerned about the Bill. That indicates his dedication to duty.
Then we had the sentimental interlude when it was discovered that it was the birthday of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). We are all glad, and wish him a happy birthday, but if this measure were so

important, so crucial and so absolutely essential to business, it is a little curious to intervene in the middle of the debate to wish him a happy birthday. But if that is how the Opposition wish to use their time, I am delighted.
The digression continued when the hon. Member for Leicester, East wished to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been observed eating lamb cutlets.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Curry: I will give way in a little while.
I was not clear whether the sin was to be eating, whether it was to be eating lamb cutlets or whether there was some implication about the origin of the lamb cutlets. Knowing my right hon. Friend's past, I would be deeply surprised if the cutlets were not English. They may even have been Suffolk lamb cutlets, and no doubt I could have provided him with Yorkshire lamb cutlets. The fact that he was eating lamb cutlets was apparently a material reason for intervening in the debate. I fail to understand quite why.

Mr. Vaz: I do not understand why the Minister has decided to trivialise this important matter. The point that was being made was that no Conservative Member could be found yesterday to partake in this debate and speak on behalf of British business. Yet the Secretary of State for the Environment, unlike the shadow Secretary of State who opened the debate for the Opposition, instead of coming to the House to listen, spent his time eating downstairs in the Churchill Room. Is that acceptable behaviour when such an important measure as this is being debated?

Mr. Curry: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend takes such a sensible precaution to ensure that he can effectively discharge his responsibilities in this House, as he has done so admirably this afternoon. Whether or not he has mint on his lamb cutlets seems marginal as far as the debate is concerned.
Yesterday, too, we had a cabaret. We heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stephenson) talking about his chip shops. I shall be delighted to accept his invitation to visit one if he can stick to his guarantee. At one moment, the debate was so gripping that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) felt the need to resort to his worry beads or prayer beads, no doubt praying that Opposition speeches would come rapidly to an end.

Mr. Kirkwood: Why did the Government feel the need to include paragraph 2(2) in the guillotine motion?

Mr. Curry: I will ensure that my good colleague has an extremely sound answer to that question.
There was a sense of deep outrage in the House. The Opposition said that this was an abuse, and that the Government were arrogant. The Opposition were so indignant that, on a measure which was announced before the Christmas recess, they imposed a one-line Whip. That was on the money resolution. The outrage was enough to impose a one-line Whip.
That one-line Whip also covered the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, to which you will not wish me to refer, Madam Deputy Speaker. That Bill, too, was sufficiently important to merit a one-line Whip. At the end of the day, 59 Members summoned up the outrage to vote against the money resolution.
Then the Opposition banged on about consultation. Where are these frustrated petitioners? Where is the


Institute of Directors, which appears to loom so large and so suddenly in the perspective of the Opposition parties? The Confederation of British Industry and the Association of Chambers of Commerce demanded access. Undoubtedly, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his rather agreeable mixed hereditament across the river, was pressing to make representations.
There was not a squeak, not a whimper, not a hint or a sound in terms of representations. [Interruption.] I have checked with my Department. How many representations did we get? We got no representations from local authority associations, the Associations of Chambers of Commerce or the CBI during the consultation period, because they were content with the measure.
Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friend and I consulted 62 councils on the rate support settlement. All those councils know that we had a wide-ranging discussion. Indeed, some have raised matters that go beyond the SSAs. Not one council wished to raise the subject of the business rate. That is the great crisis of confidence, and it is the great problem which all councils face. It is all fiction from start to finish.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister misses the point completely. The reason why he has not heard a squeak, as he puts it, from the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and local authorities is that he has not given the House sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation. He knows that there is a fundamental change in this year's proposals. They are quite different from what was foreshadowed last year. He admitted that when he said that there was a change. The House should have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation, and local authorities, the chambers of commerce, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, should have the opportunity to comment on it.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will not accept that the essentials of the proposals were published in the Budget on 30 November, the Bill was published on 16 December and the business of the House was announced before the Christmas recess. Labour Members may not have wished to work or do their homework over Christmas. However, others were able to do so, and were satisfied with the proposals.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister is making great play of the fact that he has received representations from local authorities and not one of them said anything about the proposals. The proposals relate to the national non-domestic rate. All that local authorities do is collect that rate on behalf of the Government. Why on earth would the Minister expect local authorities to make representations?

Mr. Curry: I would expect local authorities to make representations, because Labour Members told me that they were burning to make representations. Who is right? The hon. Gentleman says that they do not want to make representations; the hon. Member for Leicester, East says that they want to make representations. The hon. Member should co-ordinate his time with his colleagues. He should not accuse me of wasting time. Labour Members wasted a day and a half, and they do not appear to like it. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that seated interventions from the Labour Front Bench are helpful to the debate.

Mr. Curry: Let us look at the needs of local authorities and billing. There are three essential points that I wish to cover: first, the needs of local authorities in terms of the timetable; secondly, the unpredictability of the old business rating system and the arguments for moving to the new system; thirdly, the nature of the Bill and the understandings which I have given the House about what we will do post-1995. I have said it once, and I will say it again shortly.
A sensible local authority will want to get its first instalments payable at the beginning of April. It must leave its bills to lie for 14 days once it has served them on the businesses which must pay them. The bills, therefore, should go out certainly no later than 10 March. There is printing to be done. Of course, some of that is highly automated. Printing will have to start on 6 or 7 March.
Local authorities must be sure that they know the scheme which will operate. That means that they need certainty by the third week in February. We have already received telephone calls from councils asking whether they have that certainty: "Because of the actions of Labour Members, can we count on this measure coming through in time for us to prepare our bills?"
This year, we have the opportunity to get the bills out not merely in proper time but a little early. That is of great help to local authorities and businesses. Let us be clear on this: if we fail to do that, one of two things will happen. First, the bills will go out unamended. That will mean that they have to be rebilled. If the bills go out and have to be changed, there is a complete rebilling run. That means that businesses will be struck with uncertainty again. Secondly, local authorities will decide that they will not send out the bills and will simply wait. That means that there will be an enormous cash flow problem for local authorities. Business rates bring in £1 billion a month.
The whole history of tax changes in business is local authorities banging on our door complaining about our being late. We now have the opportunity to be early, and Labour Members wish to deny us—

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: No. I have given way a great many times already.
Labour Members wish to deny local authorities the certainty of having the system well in advance and saving money, and they wish to deny business the time to pay.
The old system was wildly unpredictable, and there were enormous variations. I have some of the figures for the variations in poundage for 1989–90. The lowest poundage was in Chelsea and Kensington, with 122·2p. The average in England was 258·3p. The highest was in Sheffield, which went over 400p in the pound at the time that the hon. Member for Attercliffe was associated with that council.

Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: I shall give way at the end of this section. Undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on his methods of creative accountancy and off-budget financing which were practised at the time.
We saw the following variations and year-on-year increases. In Ealing, the rate for businesses was 57 per


cent. That went down by 21 per cent. after capping, and it then went up by 28 per cent. in the following year. In Calderdale, the figures were 37 per cent., 2·8 per cent. and 13·9 per cent.; Haringey, 56 per cent. in a year; Hammersmith and Fulham, 44 per cent. in a year; Birmingham, 32 per cent. in a year; and Brent, 30 per cent. in a year. I could continue with the list.
If the old system was so remarkable—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister wants to refer to those matters, but I need to be persuaded that they are directly relevant to the motion before the House at present.

Mr. Curry: Labour Members said repeatedly that the old system was excellent and that everyone wished to go back to it. I am merely saying that at the time there was a large number of complaints because of the sheer unpredictability of that system.

Mr. Betts: Does the Minister accept that the league table to which he referred was one of rate poundage, not a rate product collected per hereditament? Although Sheffield was high on the rate poundage league table, it had very low rateable values. It is the two figures combined which had an impact on business. The Minister did not draw a fair comparison.

Mr. Curry: I made it clear that I was talking about rate poundage. I spelled out exactly what I was talking about. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate about financing in Sheffield, I am willing to provide an occasion when we can debate those matters.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not want such a debate.

Mr. Curry: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed but I bow to your preference.
The Bill does two things. It is not fundamentally different from the one introduced last year. It is a different Bill, but the idea that it is some radically different Bill is simply not true.
First, the Bill continues for the financial year which is almost on us the mechanism for compensation which we had in the past. The figures are different, but the mechanism is the same. For future years, if we decide that there must be a means of mitigating increases following the 1995 revaluation, it gives us the means to invite the House to approve such a means of mitigation without primary legislation every year but with an affirmative resolution in both Houses, with adequate time for debate.
I have been asked constantly about compensation. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I have given a clear commitment that any shortfall which results from new concessions will be made up by the Exchequer in full from national resources.
The Opposition have made a charade of the Bill and a cabaret of the debate, and it is about time that we got on to the substance. The Opposition do not want to do that, because they know full well that this is a popular Bill which will help business. It is a Bill which local authorities welcome and which is in time, efficient and effective, and I commend it to the House. It is about time that the

Opposition got on with the real business, and I would ask the House to accept the guillotine motion which is before it tonight.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 231.

Division No. 65]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Booth, Hartley
Fowler, Rf Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bowden, Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawksley, Warren


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Cran, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)






Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnharn, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)





Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fatchett, Derek


Ainger, Nick
Faulds, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Austin-Walker, John
Fyfe, Maria


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bayley, Hugh
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joe
Hall, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Hanson, David


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hardy, Peter


Betts, Clive
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hendron, Dr Joe


Blunkett, David
Heppell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bradley, Keith
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Illsley, Eric


Clapham, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cryer, Bob
Khabra, Piara S.


Cummings, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davidson, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAllion, John


Denham, John
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Donohoe, Brian H.
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Mandelson, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)






Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Martlew, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Maxton, John
Rooker, Jeff


Meacher, Michael
Rooney, Terry


Michael, Alun
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Ruddock, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Miller, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Simpson, Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, William
Vaz, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wallace, James


Parry, Robert
Walley, Joan


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watson, Mike


Pike, Peter L
Wicks, Malcolm


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilson, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wise, Audrey


Prescott, John
Wortnington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Alan Meale and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Rendel, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill:—

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(3) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

(4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2), forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) that successive clauses should stand part of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put the single Question that each of those clauses shall so stand part.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Extra time

3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Dilatory Motions

4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Supplemental orders

5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

LIMIT ON INCREASE IN NON-DOMESTIC RATES FOR 1994 FINANCIAL YEAR

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 27.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 28 and 29.
No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Mr. Vaz: May I say how pleased I am to see the Under-Secretary of State, who has returned to the debate following an absence. One of the interesting aspects of the debate on the Bill has been the lack of interest of the Secretary of State in the proceedings. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was present yesterday and is present today, the Secretary of State has not made a single appearance during the various stages of the Bill and has had to rely on the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State to put the arguments.
One of the reasons why the Opposition opposed the allocation of time motion on which the House has just divided was that we wished to give the House the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. One of the most worrying aspects of the Bill is the group of clauses that will continue to give special treatment to privatised utility companies —gas, electricity and water. That continues the orders that were made in the Non-Domestic Rating Acts of 1993 and 1992. In particular, it continues the special treatment conferred by article 9 of the British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1989, article 9(3) of the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 and article 9(3) of the Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989.
We have tabled the amendments to seek to remove the special treatment that has been given to the utilities, which have done extremely well as a result of the Government's privatisation policy. That policy has resulted in their being able to achieve huge profits and, as I shall show shortly, to remunerate their chairmen and chief officers with huge salaries. That has been a matter of comment not only outside the House but in the House by hon. Members of all parties. Therefore, it is extremely important to examine the proposals and seek ways in which we can ensure that the overall pool of money that will be made available for distribution to local authorities is as large as possible.
Conferring special treatment on those privatised utilities will mean, in the long run, that they will not contribute to ensuring that the pool is topped up in a way that Opposition Members and many people and organisations outside the House believe would be fair.
May I also make it clear, as it has been a matter of comment during previous stages of the Bill, that the Opposition are wholly in favour of the subsidies being given to businesses in Britain. We therefore support the principles of the Bill, in so far as they repeat the principles enunciated during the passage of the 1992 and 1993 Acts.
Businesses have suffered greatly due to the difficulties caused by the recession, which is shown quite clearly by the fact that the number of businesses approaching local authorities to obtain support through section 49 of the 1989 Act has increased dramatically. The last figures that we have for hardship cases show that, under section 49 of that Act, local authorities paid more than £1 million to support businesses.
The amendments would ensure that the amount of money that will go into the pool will increase, thereby enabling businesses to ensure that they are able to cope with the very serious recession that has affected the country during the past few years. Because of that recession the previous Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is now the Secretary of State for Wales—came before the House a year ago to ensure that the arrangements continued. That is why the Government are returning for the fifth time in four years to ensure that the amount of subsidy available to local businesses is kept at an acceptable level.
If the amendments are accepted, the privatised utilities —gas, electricity and water—will be able to contribute a much greater amount to the pool, which will diminish the amount of money that the Secretary of State will have to put in. That would mean an overall increase in the amount distributed to local authorities and would, therefore, assist local councils.
I hope that the amendments will be accepted. If the Minister needs any enticing, I merely point out that the privatised utilities have done extremely well during the past few years. There can be no better source of information or statistics that hon. Members on both sides of the House can accept than the Library, which has produced for me a note setting out the pre-tax profits of some of the companies to which the Government wish to give special treatment.
British Gas made a pre-tax profit for the year 1992–93 of £1,054 million and its chairman, Mr. Evans, received £379,000 in remuneration for that financial year. Why on earth should the pool be diminished to give special treatment to British Gas, under orders passed in 1989, when it has made more than £1 billion in profits and its chairman is receiving such a large remuneration? It is certainly a great deal more than that received by Ministers of the Crown or even the Prime Minister.
Special arrangements are to be provided for the water industry under article 9(3) of the Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989. How much profit have the water companies made? Last year North West Water made a profit of £247 million; it pays its chairman £238,000 a year. Northumbrian Water made £69 million in pre-tax profits last year and pays its chairman £91,000. Severn Trent Water—the water authority which covers my constituency—made a pre-tax profit of £270 million and the remuneration of its chairman was £179,000. Southern Water made a profit of £119 million and its chairman receives £170,000. South West Water made £93 million and its chairman receives £112,000. Thames Water made £251 million, Welsh Water made £156 million, Wessex Water made £86 million and Yorkshire Water made £139 million. They paid their chairmen £155,000, £156,000, £164,000 and £156,000 respectively.
Will the Minister explain why special treatment is to be given to the water authorities when their profits are so vast


and when the amount of money that they made available in remuneration for their chairmen was high last year and I am sure will again be high this year?
Article 9(3) of the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989, which I re-read this morning—I am sure that the Minister has also re-read it—shows that special treatment will again be given to the electricity undertakings, which made almost as much pre-tax profit as the water companies.
East Midlands Electricity made £155 million and pays its chairman £226,000. Eastern Electricity made £183 million and pays its chairman £238,000. London Electricity made £146 million; Manweb, £111 million; Midlands Electricity, £167 million; Northern Electric, £111 million; Norweb, £157 million; Seeboard, £113 million; South Wales Electricity, £87 million; South Western Electricity, £111 million; Southern Electric, £187 million; and Yorkshire Electricity, £156 million. The salaries of their chairmen vary from £226,000 a year to £167,000.
The Government have given no explanation of why it is necessary to continue this year an order made in 1989. All it will mean is that companies that have done extremely well during the past few years will be indirectly rewarded by the Government. If we set aside the sweeteners and the other support given to those industries when they were privatised and merely look at the support offered because of that special treatment, we see that the amount of money available to the pool will be diminished. Why is it important? It is for the very reason put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on Second Reading. Not one Conservative Member came to the Chamber and spoke in support of Government policy.
We are so concerned about the effects of the Bill because of the fundamental change that has been made since the passage of the 1993 Act. The clauses making that change take away the duty of the Secretary of State to make good the shortfall and replace it with a power. From the comments of the Minister for Local Government and Planning during the debates on the money resolution and on Second Reading, we know that he is not concerned about the fact that he has not even devised the scheme that will be in place after 1995. He made that absolutely clear. He did not know what the scheme would do, yet he expects the Committee to approve a clause that will give special treatment to companies that have made billions of pounds in the past few years. That is unacceptable.
No argument in favour of that special treatment was made on Second Reading, and the Minister did not refer to it tonight, although he had the opportunity to do so. All that we have been offered by the hon. Gentleman is the stock phrase used by other ministerial colleagues. He has pushed the official Government line that the Bill must be passed as quickly as possible to ensure that the billing arrangements are established so that local authorities do not suffer.
7.30 pm
We witnessed an extraordinary performance earlier, when the Minister failed to allow proper scrutiny of the issue and cast aside our objections. He knows that it is essential that we ensure that local government gets as many resources as possible. The amendment will ensure that they

receive more resources, certainly more than they did last year in terms of their take from the non-domestic rating pool.
The Minister should study the number of bankruptcies and business failures that have occurred in the past few years. For the years 1990 to 1993, the number of business failures was 28,935, 47,777, 62,767 and 55,673 respectively. The level of the business rate contributed to the enormous costs facing local businesses. British Gas, the water companies, East Midlands Electricity and Northern Electric, however, have done extremely well, even during the recession—some would say because of the recession. Why should businesses in my constituency and those of other right hon. and hon. Members not benefit from the money made available from the rates pool?
I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments are modest. They have been tabled as a means of helping the Minister and the Government through a difficult economic time. They will result in more money being available for the pool.
The Minister may reply by suggesting that the commitment to the utilities was made in 1989 by one of his predecessors or the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when those utilities were sold off. He may argue that the House must be bound by that commitment. The situation has changed, however, because we have had a recession, which has caused 55,000 businesses to go bust. Those utilities, however, have done extremely well.
Now is the opportunity to replace the current system with a reasonable course of action to ensure that those who make more are able to pay more. The enterprises that have got away with special treatment should, quite properly, be made accountable for the money that they have made.

Mr. Betts: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said about the intention behind the amendment.
I understand that the transitional arrangements in the Bill will ensure that those businesses that are subject to a large increase in their business rate as a result of a revaluation will be offered some assistance to offset the financial impact of it. The Opposition have made it clear that they have no objection to the revaluation exercise or to the implementation of transitional arrangements that protect businesses that would otherwise suffer a marked increase in their business rate. It must be accepted, however, that a revaluation reflects certain changes that have occurred in the standing of a business vis-a-vis other businesses since the previous valuation. Those revaluations reflect current conditions. The transitional arrangements should act as a cushion against the impact of different valuations on certain businesses, out there in the real world.
No one has sought to argue that small companies should not be cushioned from the effects of an increase in their valuations. That is right and proper, because many do not have large financial reserves. Many others have suffered tremendously in the past three years of the recession. They should be protected from any sudden increase in their rateable valuation and the new rates should be phased in.
There is some question about whether larger businesses should be protected, although I accept that, in the past three years, larger businesses in the manufacturing sector have not made profits. Many have simply marked time, while


others have made losses. It is reasonable that some protection should be offered to them, particularly in the current economic climate.
The amendment concerns those companies that have done extremely well, even in the recession. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East read out the profits that have been made by the privatised utilities and none of them is in any financial danger because of lower profits. None of them is making a loss.
When my hon. Friend read out the list of those privatised utilities and the profits that they have made, I thought in particular of those that serve my constituency, Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent Water, East Midlands Electricity and Yorkshire Electricity. The combined profits of those four companies come to £700 million, which is substantially more than the £90 million shortfall that the Government have catered for in the Bill. That profit represents an awful lot of money. Those companies are hardly on the brink of disaster. They are unlikely to be rocked by the effects of a revaluation, however large the rate increase might be. Why then do the Government want to offer transitional arrangements for those utilities? What is the justification for that?
The Government claim that they have budgetary problems of their own and we know that local authorities face similar problems, so why have the Government chosen to spend money on the utilities, which make excessive profits? Why have they been allowed to get away without paying a proper rateable value according to latest revaluations?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend served for 16 years as a Sheffield city councillor and for five years as leader of that great city. Does he agree that it will be extremely difficult to explain to Sheffield city council and other local authorities that the amount of money available to them has been reduced because the Government are showing favour to their friends in big business by allowing them special treatment?

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend puts the argument succinctly. I do not know how I would begin to explain to my local authority in Sheffield and my constituents why they should face reductions in their services, worth between £30 million and £40 million in the next financial year, while the Government attempt to give what can only be described as a subsidy and a hand-out to utilities that already make excessive profits. Perhaps the Minister could help me. It is an obscene waste of public money to introduce legislation that allows those utilities to pay lower rates than the revaluations have deemed that they should pay.
That is what transitional arrangements do. They do not say that the rateable values are wrong, but simply that business should be cushioned from the immediate impact of what it is deemed proper that they should pay for a period.
There is no problem with small businesses or the manufacturing industry. I want the Minister to say clearly what would happen to those utilities if the transitional relief was not available to them. Can he name one consequence that would have any impact on those businesses, on the people whom they employ and on the services that they provide to people throughout the country, from not allowing it? I do not believe that he can,

but he may find many other things that he could do, if the money were available to the Treasury, to help local government deliver better services throughout the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It might be helpful if I put the amendment, which is in quite a narrow context, into some perspective. Underneath the inescapable complexities of the drafting, the principle of the relief scheme is simple. Without it, some 360,000 non-domestic properties still in so-called upward transition would be subject to real-terms rate increases next year of up to 20 per cent. for larger properties. For a number of sectors posing unusually difficult valuation problems, principally former public utilities, rateable values are made by the Secretary of State rather than arrived at through conventional valuation. That is the reason why they are in that category. It is not because they happen to be former utilities, but because they present difficult valuation properties.
For properties of those categories still in upward transition there would have been real rate increases of up to 20 per cent. next year. Clause 1(4) substitutes a limit of 10 per cent. That would ensure that, for the purposes of the scheme, such properties are treated on all fours with other large hereditaments. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that they were being given special treatment. That is not the case. They are being treated in exactly the same way as every other conventionally rated property.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister accepts delegations from local authorities all over the country. He was visited recently by a delegation from Leicester, which made a strong case for additional Government funding and resources to make up for the cuts in Government expenditure for Leicester. He knows all of that, and the context in which local government operates at the moment.
Therefore, how can he justify giving special treatment —that is what it amounts to—through a subsidy to British Gas, which made profits of £1,054 million last year, and to the water companies, which, between them, made £1,615 million last year, and to the electricity companies when, as he knows, ordinary local businesses have suffered because of the recession? The Opposition do not oppose his proposals to give a subsidy to business. We believe that it is important at a time of recession and that is why we did not vote against the Second Reading.
In the amendment, we are putting forward a proper reflection of what happened in the economy over the past few years. We want the Government to accept, in what is a modest amendment, that those who have done well should not be subsidised, but should be taxed at a proper and appropriate level; a level that they can manage to deal with quite effectively.

The Chairman: Order. That was a long intervention.

Mr. Vaz: I thought that we were in Committee.

The Chairman: We may be in Committee, and an hon. Member may contribute many times. Interventions, by convention, are short and succinct, to put the Minister on the spot, or to ask a question.

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Of course I will accept your guidance. I shall take that as a nod that I should interrupt the Minister several times before he finishes.

Mr. Baldry: The amendment is in a narrow compass. Essentially, what the hon. Gentleman wants, as he has made clear, is that utilities should be treated differently from other business. We see no merit in setting higher limits on transitional rate bill increases for utilities than for other industrial rate payers. The laws of natural equity expect that every business be treated the same. The extra burden on their customers could be significant in some cases. I shall use as an example the rates bill that the National Grid Company would pay in Wales next year, because businesses within that category are not all privatised businesses as the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest. They include nationalised industries such as British Waterways and organisations such as National Grid.

Mr. Vaz: It is a narrow point, and that is why we have been careful in the way in which we have tabled our amendments. We have not included the railways rateable values order, because of the difficulties that that organisation faces. We have been specific in selecting in this amendment those utilities that we believe can bear the full rateable value.
I refer the Minister to the speech by his predecessor at column 855 of Hansard of 27 April when it was accepted that it was the recession that had meant that a new proposal had to be brought forward.

Mr. Baldry: I am aware that the Opposition have not included the railways. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I was saying, he would know that neither the National Grid nor British Waterways is a railway. But they would come within the context of the amendment. The rates bill that the National Grid Company would pay in Wales next year would be nearly £1·75 million higher if the amendments were accepted.
It is a narrow point and the Government believe that in equity everyone should be treated in the same way. On those grounds, the Government urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Vaz: It is a sad state of affairs that a Minister of the Crown can argue that British Gas, the water authorities and electricity companies should be treated in exactly the same way as local businesses. As I said at the start of the debate, the Opposition do not oppose the subsidy that is being given. Indeed, we support the additional help for businesses. That is why on the previous occasion when the matter came before the House we supported the principle of additional help to local businesses, as put forward in the Non-Domestic Rating Bill of 1992–93.
We object to the unfairness that the Government wish to proceed with; an unfairness that was properly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). My hon. Friend speaks with vast experience of the difficulties that local businesses face. As someone who led a local authority, he knows very well the problems that local businesses have, and their difficulties in paying their taxes and, as then, their rates. I am sure that, in the conversations that my hon. Friend had with local businesses as leader of Sheffield city council, they expressed to him their concerns about the level of rates and then the level of uniform business rates that they had to

pay. The amendment is narrow. It deals with those particular industries. It sets out clearly the fact that we should not give them special treatment.
Of course, they will be given special treatment, because the whole purpose of the Bill is to give support to those businesses that are in difficulty because of the recession. I refer the Minister to the comments made by his then hon. Friend, now his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He said:
Bearing in mind the effects of the recession, the Government decided last year not to add to the burden on businesses."—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 853.]
There would be no burden on businesses if British Gas, with profits of more than £1 billion, the water companies and the electricity companies, were to pay their fair share of rates; nor would the Government be in any way criticised for making those privatised utilities pay what they should pay. Rather, the public would applaud their decision to make them do so because it would directly benefit the small businesses that have suffered from the recession.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendments. I am not convinced by anything that he has said. Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading have come to the Dispatch Box and read out a few lines prepared for them on the basis of what happened last year. They assume that everything is the same. However, everything is not the same, and everything should not be the same.
The privatised utilities that have done well should pay more or what is fair because that will benefit the pool. It will mean that the Secretary of State will have to put less into the pool by way of compensating for the shortfall, a promise that he made verbally but has not put in the Bill. That will mean that the pressure on the Government to provide assistance in other areas of policy will be reduced.
The amendments will help, not hinder the Government. They will paint the Minister and his colleagues as reasonable and fair people who are prepared to allow those who make more to pay more.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

AMENDMENTS OF POWER TO MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR 1995 ONWARDS

Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'(2) Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and to subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates about the effects of the compilation of new local non-domestic rating lists on hereditaments in each of the following categories—

(a) factories;
(b) offices;
(c) shops;
(d) warehouses; and
(e) other hereditaments.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'(3) Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates and those local authorities as appear


to him to be concerned about the effects of the compilation of a new local non-domestic rating list on the local economy in each of the regions of England set out below and in Wales.
For the purposes of this section the regions of England are the standard economic planning regions, namely

(a) the Northern region;
(b) the North West region;
(c) the Yorkshire and Humberside region;
(d) the West Midlands region;
(e) the East Midlands region;
(f) East Anglia;
(g) London;
(h) the South East region, excluding London; and
(i) the South West region.'.

Mr. Henderson: I am always pleased, Mr. Morris, to serve under your chairmanship. You were the Chairman of the first Committee on which I served. The Bill that we were considering had seven or eight clauses. We managed to make progress, but it took us between 30 and 35 sittings.
Some hon. Members may erroneously have had the impression last night that some hon. Members were elongating their contributions. However, I can assure you, Mr. Morris, and the Committee, that that was not the Opposition's intention. We were making very real points in relation to procedure and the Bill. I hope to continue in the same spirit in Committee and to deal as expeditiously as possible with the amendments that have been selected.
Amendment No. 4 says that, before regulations are made under section 58, the guts of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State should, with regard to the Bill's impact on different types of premises, consult bodies which appear to him to be representative of persons who may be subject to non-domestic rates.
Amendment No. 5 says:
the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates
and local authorities in different parts of the country.
The changing pattern of business rates clearly has many different impacts. There is the impact of revaluation which takes place every five years and the impact of the way in which any increases are subject to relief which the Government may or may not give to businesses. The impact differs according to the type of business and the region.
It is important that the Government should consult widely before decisions are made. The starting point differs in different parts of the country and the economic circumstances of businesses vary greatly.
Most hon. Members will agree that Dun and Bradstreet is a good source of information on the state of the economy in different parts of the country. In other circumstances, there may have been a temptation to have given the House more information from that organisation, but I shall simply say that it has recorded that the number of business failures in 1993 was nearly double those in 1990. However, the impact was different in different parts of the country. Dun and Bradstreet's most recent publication shows that London had more than 9,000 business failures last year, the south-east 13,000, the eastern region 2,000, the south-west 7,000, and so on. One can see the pattern. It is clear that there is a variation in the impact of the recession and in the circumstances in which different businesses find themselves. Those businesses would want to make representations to the Secretary of State regarding their circumstances before the Secretary of State sets limits on

the general movement in the level of business rates or decides on the case for or against any transitional provision.
Opposition Members have complained about the procedure adopted in relation to the Bill and the inability of organisations to make their views known, but after I tentatively prepared some amendments which raised a number of issues that concern people, several organisations wrote to me setting out their views on the regional impact of business rates. Those views differ around the country.
Barnsley chamber of commerce, to which I referred earlier, believes that people in the south have received all the benefit of the Secretary of State's provisions in past years because they have had the largest part of the transitional arrangements. Some of its views have been echoed by, for example, the east midlands chambers of commerce and industry.
It is surprising that the Government had to admit earlier this evening that they have not received representations. I would not say that my desk has been flooded with representations, but I have had a reasonable spread from around the country.
The east midlands chambers of commerce say that they do not believe that the north and the midlands have benefited from the Secretary of State's provision in the past. They, too, believe that the south has done better.
On a previous occasion I mentioned the contribution that I received from Southampton chamber of commerce. It believes that the southern part of the country experienced the worst impact of the 1990 revaluation and that, although some transitional relief was made available, it did not compensate for the increases that businesses have had to face in that part of our nation. Therefore, it believes that the north has done best from the changes that have taken place since 1990.
My purpose in giving only a flavour of some of the evidence that I have on this matter is to show that different parts of the country have different perceptions of how they have been affected. The Secretary of State would be wise in future, if this legislation receives the approval of the House, before a decision is made on the question of relief, to consult widely regional organisations of one form or another, whether they are based on industrial and commercial associations or whether they are individual organisations. The representatives of these bodies should be consulted to give the Secretary of State a flavour of how businesses are performing and of what the impact of rates increases will be—and hence an assessment of the need for transitional relief. It would be both democratic and wise if the Secretary of State set off in that direction.
A whole spread of views has been put to me about amendment No. 5. Those views relate to the impact of the changes and to what sort of policies organisations want. They have mentioned, for instance, that they would prefer their local authorities, not the Secretary of State, to make decisions on these matters. They feel that local authorities would be more sensitive to the needs of local industry. They also believe that businesses would be more able to influence the decisions of local authorities and they feel remote from the Secretary of State and unable to have any great impact on his decisions. The onus is now on the Secretary of State to dispel those worries and to show himself open-minded when he takes his decisions.
8 pm
Most organisations identify industrial, commercial and retail premises and they often take a regional view of the possible impact on different types of premises. The Government should be aware of the strong feelings that prevail before they take decisions on these important matters. That is why amendment No. 4 was drafted. Many of these organisations may have wanted to make more concrete representations but they have been unable to do so because of the way in which the Bill has been rushed in, but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities tells me that it is aware of the views of various bodies representing sections of industry. If this debate were longer, I would be able to read out much more evidence in support of amendment No. 4.
I have had some interesting correspondence about the 1995 revaluation from an organisation known as Gerald Eve Research Forecasts, a company that acts as consultant to many local authority associations and major business organisations. In a word, it has many important clients and it has drawn together a number of different views on the projected impact of the 1995 revaluation. The AMA has been given an interesting paper on the subject by Robin Goodchild, who says that the rating changes will have different impacts in different parts of the country. He forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates on central London retailers of the order of 15 per cent., but an increase of about 20 per cent. in the east midlands, and of between 15 and 50 per cent. in the north-west and the north. He predicts that office developments in the east midlands will face a 50 per cent. increase in the burden of rates, while in the north-west and the north the increase will vary between 15 and 30 per cent. He also forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates for some southern parts.
The consultant predicts increases for all industrial premises following the revaluation, but smaller increases of between 5 and 10 per cent. in London and the south-east, and increases ranging up to 30 per cent. in the east midlands, the north and the north-west. I would expect the Secretary of State, when considering the transitional relief arrangements to apply from 1995, to want to be aware of these views of various consultants and I expect that the local authority associations may want to make their views known to him by way of representation.
My group of speculative papers written by Gerald Eve includes a number of other views, too. The office of Stephen Tutcher FRICS predicts that the burden of rates will not increase as much for offices in the southern part of the country after 1995, but that there will be an additional burden for offices in the north—a factor which I am sure the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding on transitional relief. I should add that the assessments of the impact of the revaluation vary among the consultants who have assisted local authority organisations.
My folder contains the views of other consultants on this issue, but I hope that I have established the general point, although if Conservative Members doubt what I say I am quite prepared to enlighten them further with more evidence. I hope, however, that they have taken the point already.
It is widely recognised that the state of the economy differs in various parts of the country. Likewise, the impact of rates on businesses differs. It is clear that the various consultants who have applied their minds to the detail believe that there will certainly be changes in the regional impact of the rates following the 1995 revaluation. For our

part, we believe that the Secretary of State would be wise to undertake formal consultation with representative organisations before reaching decisions that will have a long-standing impact on the business community and, in turn, on the economy.
I look forward to hearing what my colleagues and the Minister have to say on this subject.

Mr. David Rendel: A fairly small and select class of right hon. and hon. Members who were here for the Second Reading debate are here again tonight. Those in that class will remember that yesterday I opposed an amendment moved on Second Reading by the Labour party. On this occasion, I want to show the even-handed way in which Liberal Democrats act in the House by supporting an amendment moved by the Labour party.
The fairness of my efforts will become even more apparent when I mention that my support is given in an attempt to persuade the Government that it is in their best interests that the amendment be agreed to. The Conservatives have often claimed to be a party which favours consultation with all sorts of people. Unfortunately, they do not often act in accordance with their words. The result has often been that legislation has been passed which has later had to be reversed—one has only to think of the poll tax legislation, and there are other examples.
I cannot help feeling that had the Government consulted properly on those occasions, the legislation that they later had to reverse would never have been introduced in the first place. That would have been much to their benefit, not least because of the waste of parliamentary time and of taxpayers' money caused by legislation that should never have been introduced.
I support the principle of consultation in general, and, in this instance, I think that the Government would be wise not only to consult but to listen to the results of their consultation. They could argue that there is no point in consulting, because—as everyone knows—even when they do consult they never pay any attention to what is said by the consultees; rather than being as cynical as they might be tempted to be, however, I suggest that they consult widely and take note of the responses. I think that they have been granted an opportunity that they should grasp with both hands.

Mr. Baldry: The amendment would simply oblige the Secretary of State to consult on a statutory basis. I consider it unnecessary. We fully recognise that consultation on matters relating to local government is extremely desirable, and we always engage in such consultation.

Mr. Vaz: I am astonished to hear what the Minister is saying. He was in the Chamber when the Minister of State replied to the debate on the allocation of time; he must have heard the Minister of State mock the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and local authorities. He also mocked the Archbishop of Canterbury —although you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Morris. He said that he had had no representations from them. The Minister says that the Government wish to consult. To what extent did they consult before introducing the Bill?

Mr. Baldry: Any reasonable person who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that what the hon. Gentleman has said does not accord with the facts. We have just


completed the most comprehensive review ever of the methodology for allocating grant to local authorities, which has involved Ministers and officials in numerous meetings with local authority representatives and organisations. Of course, we are always interested in the views of such bodies as the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors.
We fully understand the need to consult widely on any proposals for the introduction of transitional arrangements following the 1995 revaluation, and subsequent revaluations. I therefore see no need to make the Bill longer by making that a formal duty. Yesterday, we made clear our intention to consult businesses on the effects of the 1995 revaluation by early summer. We also recognise that local authorities will need warning of our proposals, and we will certainly take their views into account.
I consider our record on consultation on business rates exemplary—as, indeed, is our record on consultation on all matters relating to local government finance. We consulted widely on our proposals for the current transitional arrangements before introducing them in 1990, and we have continued to listen carefuly to the views of individual businesses and their representatives ever since. My officials have regular discussions with members of the valuation profession about the effects of revaluations and the detailed operation of the non-domestic rating system; we also have regular meetings with local authority associations.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister consider it "exemplary" to consult people and then ignore the result of their consultations? That is what happened in the case of the poll tax legislation.

Mr. Baldry: Whenever Ministers consult widely on matters of public policy, they must ultimately make value judgments; that is their duty. I could consult every shire county in the country about the methodology involved in local government finance, but I could not possibly secure the agreement of all those counties on the relative weighting of the area cost adjustment. All the authorities that benefit from the adjustment want to keep it; those that do not will not want it to continue.
Consultation does not mean having to accept all that every organisation says: it means listening intelligently, being prepared to consider and being prepared, intelligently, to take on board the suggestions that are made. I believe that this Bill, like previous Bills, is a good example of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of businesses and other consultees about the operation of the business rate system.

Mr. John Gunnell: Has the Minister consulted businesses on a regional basis? One of the advantages of the old system was the fact that such consultations took place at local level. If we accept that the Department's consultations with business cannot take place at local level, surely the Minister accepts that there will be great regional variations in the effect of the measures. Has he consulted the regional organisations of either the CBI or the chambers of commerce? He might receive different messages from different regions, and he might be able to take those differences into account.

Mr. Baldry: Of course. I am more than willing to take into account representations that might be made to us by

the CBI at regional level—or, indeed, by local government at regional level. We are intent on ensuring that we secure the best possible system. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by the imposition of a statutory duty on the Government, given that our actions make it clear that we are more than willing to consult widely. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister tells us to judge the Government by their actions. I am glad that the Minister of State has returned to the Chamber, because I intend to refer to comments that he made during the debate on the allocation of time motion. He made mocking remarks: I use the word "mocking" advisedly, because I was astonished at his demeanour when he challenged the Opposition on whether people were pressing at our doors and writing letters to make their views known on this important subject.
The Minister mocked the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the chambers of commerce and local authorities, and threw in an aside about the Archbishop of Canterbury; he said that he did not know whether the archbishop had decided to write a letter about the matter. The fact is that not even the Archbishop of Canterbury has had enough time to consider the Government's proposals. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tabled the amendments. They would place a duty on the Government to consult a number of organisations and examine the various regions to observe the effects of their rating policy on local businesses.
The Under-Secretary says that this Government listen intelligently, and are intelligently prepared to take on board representations made by various organisations. When I challenged him about the number of organisations that the Government had consulted, however, he was unable to give me a single example. All that the Leader of the House and the Minister of State have told the House is that the Bill was published on 16 December.
The Minister implied that, if we had been diligent, we would have spent the Chirstmas period writing to organisations and asking for their comments. That is exactly what we have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North read out a number of comments made by chambers of commerce, selecting letters from Barnsley and Southampton from the pile that he had received; but I have not even had the chance to consult those organisations.
It is important that the Government accept the amendments. We feel strongly about them because the best way to proceed is to ensure full consultation not only with local authorities but with the regional branches of organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who is a former leader of Leeds city council, has vast experience in this sphere. From his membership of that fine council he knows about the level of consultation required by councils on various aspects of policy. We often hear Ministers from the Department of the Environment lecturing councils about the need to enter partnership agreements with local businesses. All urban regeneration policy is now based on the concept of a partnership between local authorities and the private sector, a partnership which has been spearheaded in places such as Leeds and Sheffield. The amendments have the same aim. They would ensure that the words used by the


Government for a number of years were put into effect and that there was an attempt to rebuild the relationship between the local private sector, the local authority and the Government. We want to create a climate that will enable local businesses to form an equal partnership with local authorities.
I recently visited Luton to see the regeneration work being carried out by Luton borough council. Local councillors told me of their initiatives with the private sector. Every few months, members of Luton borough council hold meetings—they call them business breakfasts —with the business community and ensure that they are kept fully in touch with the needs of local business. That is precisely what we are asking the Government to do. We want to ensure that the people most affected by the Government's proposals are properly consulted.
The Under-Secretary says that it is not necessary to include every duty in the Bill. He says that he is a reasonable chap, is prepared to talk to anyone and attend meetings with anyone as long as he hears various points of view that can help to formulate policy. He mentioned the Government's review of local government finance, but we know where that led—it led to enormous cuts in resources for the rate support grant. The House will look forward to discussing that in the near future.
The Under-Secretary also said that we did not need to add more clauses to the Bill. The Bill has only four clauses and we are proposing small amendments. There is no reason why the Government cannot accept an amendment to a four-clause Bill, which would mean that the Government would formally consult a number of organisations which could assist them in the discharge of their duties.
I hope very much that, even at this late stage, the Minister will accept the amendments, as he has not really spoken against them. He accepts the principle behind them, but says that what the amendments suggest will be carried out in any event. It is not possible to predict who will be in the Department in a year's time, or even next week. For example, the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who introduced the Bill last year, gave some commitments, but things have changed. We would, therefore, much prefer to have commitments included in the Bill so that it is clear to local authorities and businesses what they need to do to bring their views to the Government's attention.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments and ensure that we make rapid progress.

Mr. Gunnell: I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) so that I do not offend another hon. Member. My hon. Friend did me the singular honour of describing me as a former leader of Leeds city council, but that was in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). I am a former member of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council and was its leader until it was abolished by the Conservatives. Usually, when an authority is abolished, something similar is substituted for it. West Yorkshire county council consulted thoroughly with the local chamber of commerce and the regional branch of the CBI, but that consultation has not been replaced. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to change that tonight.

Mr. Henderson: I hoped that the Minister might respond to some of the additional points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but it seems that he is intent on maintaining his sedentary position.
I have many times in Committee discussed amendments that have called on the Government, one way or another, to give a legislative commitment to consult various bodies. Many times I have heard Ministers say that they have a great deal of sympathy with the points being made and that they consult in any case, but that they are not prepared to include such a commitment in legislation. It is not good enough for the Government to adopt that attitude on a matter such as this.
It is important that formal consultation is carried out through the official channels representing interested bodies. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has a wink and a nod and various chats with friends around the country and that that gives him a clear impression of what is happening in industry and of the views of the industrial, retail and commercial sectors.
The amendments are necessary because of the, perhaps wrong, perception that people in the business community have about the impact of rates. The Government should try to meet any difficulties and set up a formal consultation process so that no one is in any doubt about the information according to which decisions are reached. However, as the Government are being so obstinate, I feel bound to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

The Chairman: Serjeant, will you investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby and report back, please?

The Committee having divided: Ayes 94, Noes 295.

Division No.66]
[8.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gunnell, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hain, Peter


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike


Bayley, Hugh
Henderson, Doug


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoey, Kate


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Betts, Clive
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gerrard, Neil
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Olner, William


Godsiff, Roger
Pickthall, Colin






Pike, Peter L.
Snape, Peter


Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Randall, Stuart
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Rendel, David



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John Spellar.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Fabricant, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fishburn, Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hanley, Jeremy


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles





Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wells, Bowen


Norris, Steve
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John






Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Mr. Michael Brown and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Derek Conway.


Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Perhaps it is fortuitous that this issue is being discussed in a Committee of the whole House. It is encouraging to see that Conservative Members have begun to take an interest in proceedings on the Bill. Those of them who had other things to do yesterday evening would have been welcome to join us then and to make their views known on the important issues that affect businesses in their constituencies. Their decision to join us today, and at least to listen to the debate—perhaps even to participate in it —is welcome. Some of the things that I shall say may encourage them to join in the debate. I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who is always keen to take part—indeed, he was the only Conservative Member who took part in the debate yesterday.
This is a key amendment. There is considerable regret among Opposition Members that the Bill is not being debated in a way that would allow representations to be made by interested parties. The clause, and our amendment to it, represent the nub of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make a judgment on how the level of transitional relief should relate to the rating pool and to decide whether any funding from central Government should be paid into that pool to compensate for any gaps caused by the relief that businesses may have been given.
8.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State have both claimed that if the Government introduce transitional relief they intend to top up the pool and to make good any losses arising. I am not one who necessarily distrusts commitments given by the aforesaid Ministers, but, as has already been pointed out, we can never be sure that they will still be in post by the time the Bill takes effect. Indeed, the Bill will have a long-term effect on business rates way beyond 1995. It is not good enough practice for Ministers simply to give commitments —although I am sure that those commitments will go some way towards warming the hearts of the businesses affected. Parliament is supposed to legislate and if the Minister believes that there is a case for topping up the rating pool, he, on behalf of the Government, should be prepared to say that in the event of transitional relief being granted the Government will top up the pool and add to the amount of public money available for local authorities to meet important needs all over the country.
If we believe that there should be legislative backing to the Government's intention, it is important to press the amendment so that the commitment will be given and businesses around the country will be assured that the Government do not necessarily intend to reduce the funding available to meet the important needs of the community. If that is really the Government's position, there is a strong case for their accepting the amendment.

Mr. Baldry: We may have a rather frustrating debate because the amendment does not do what the hon. Member thinks that it should do or that he wants it to do.

Mr. Vaz: Why?

Mr. Baldry: Because the hon. Gentleman has sought to explain in his speech what he had hoped that the amendment would do. Anybody who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that that was what he had hoped that it would do.
The effect of the amendment would be to deny the Government the power to make transitional arrangements after 1995 which included a measure of Exchequer support for businesses facing rate increases as a result of the revaluation. Any arrangement would therefore have to be self-financing, with the cost of any protection for losers having to be borne by the gainers.
The Committee does not need to be reminded that the 1990 transitional arrangements were originally self-financing. Ratepayers who were potential beneficiaries of the 1990 revaluation had their rate reductions limited to meet the cost of cushioning the effects of increases. Not surprisingly, that was unpopular with businesses and added considerably to the administrative complexity of the arrangements. We listened to the concerns of businesses and that was why we introduced the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 to provide £1·25 billion of Government support for the arrangements. The Act froze rate increases beyond the rate of inflation for 1992–93, while allowing greater reductions for businesses whose bills were being phased downwards.

Mr. Vaz: Why will not the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between what was proposed in 1992 and what is being proposed in this Bill?

Mr. Baldry: I am concerned about what is proposed in the amendment.
Further relief worth £550 million was provided by the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993 and, as we have made clear, this Bill provides further assistance. The Bill is entirely consistent with what we have sought to do in the past couple of years in providing support for the business community. The amendment would deny the Government the chance to make regulations giving further relief to businesses in 1995–96 and beyond should that appear to us to be necessary.

Mr. Vaz: I refer the Under-Secretary to what his hon. Friend said yesterday. I realise that he was not in the House, but at column 197 of Hansard, the Minister makes it quite clear that the scheme to be used has not yet been devised. Therefore, the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) does not mitigate against the scheme because the scheme itself has not been designed.

Mr. Baldry: That is why I began my comments on the amendment by saying that I thought that we were going to have a somewhat frustrating debate. The amendment does not propose anything that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North suggests, because it would remove the provision which would allow the Government to make the transitional arrangements that are not self-financing. I am sure that businesses would be interested to know if the Opposition were seeking to prevent us entirely from helping businesses with their rates by that means.


We can always come back to Parliament with further Bills such as this Bill each year, but if the aim of the amendment is to ensure that decisions on any such funding are given parliamentary scrutiny, I can assure hon. Members that any transitional arrangements that we make after 1995 are already required by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. There would be a full opportunity for hon. Members to consider any proposals carefully and there is no question that the arrangements could be used to increase the burden of rates on businesses, so we would not expect the regulations to prove contentious.

Mr. Vaz: How can the Minister expect Labour Members to accept any of his assurances when we bear in mind the fact that the Bill is being rushed through the House at record speed? How can we accept assurances that we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the complex regulations in the future when he has treated the House with such contempt over the past two days?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman cannot quite keep a straight face when asking that question. As I have just explained, the statutory provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 oblige us to bring the measures before the House. That is a much more practicable way in which to deal with the matters than the administrative complexity and timetabling problems with further full-blown Bills.
I remind hon. Members that businesses and local authorities will be looking for clear and early notice of any decisions that could affect rates bills. The simpler and faster the procedure, the more easily it is likely to be achieved. Flexibility is therefore essential. An amendment which would remove the provision that allows the Government to make transitional arrangements which are not self-financing would reassure businesses.

Mr. Betts: The Minister referred to the frustrating nature of the debate. Is not the greatest frustration that he keeps saying that there will be no occasion on which the shortfall in the business rate pool will not be made up by Government? If that is the case, why does not he cut across the Bill and give a commitment to legislate to that effect? What is the problem? There has never been any explanation of why the Bill cannot be drafted to achieve that. Why, if the Under-Secretary does not believe that our amendment achieves that commitment, does not he propose another amendment instead?

Mr. Baldry: To use a rather legalistic phrase, we have given those undertakings during the debate on occasions too numerous to particularise. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have sought to explain that it would not benefit the business community to seek to proscribe the scheme that we may introduce after 1995 until we have consulted. We have made it perfectly clear time after time that we would not expect council tax payers to bear the cost if the pool had to be topped up. Little short of putting it in bright lights, I am not sure what more we can do. Nor, with respect, do I think that the more times that we say it the more it will impact on hon. Members. It is clear that the whole debate about powers and duties was a spurious debate in an attempt to keep business going yesterday. There is no validity in it and the amendment does not seek to address that point.
I hope that the Committee recognises that the amendment does not do what it is even intended to do. It would remove the provisions which would allow the Government to make transitional arrangements that are not self-financing and would not be to the advantage of the business community.

Mr. Henderson: I had some doubts about whether we should proceed with the two final amendments because they deal with matters of fairly general concern which could have been covered partially on Second Reading with the remaining points being taken up on Third Reading. I am glad that I proceeded with amendment No. 6 because we have scratched a surface and exposed a flaw in the Bill.
If I understand the Minister correctly, he does not accept the sentiment of my argument in support of the amendment. He does not accept that there should be a provision which requires the Government to top up the rating pool in the event of transitional relief being given to certain businesses. He gave a commitment that he would do so next year, but he made it clear that he does not feel required to make such a provision.

9 pm

Mr. Baldry: As I said, this is going to be a frustrating debate. The amendment goes nowhere near achieving the hon. Gentleman's intentions. If he is asking me to undertake that if in future there is a need to top up the scheme the Government will do so, if that were the means we used, we have already given that undertaking. My hon. Friend the Minister and I made that clear and anyone who reads yesterday's Hansard will see that undertaking being given on a number of occasions. The amendment has nothing to do with that. As drafted, it simply removes the Government's ability to do exactly that. Indeed, it makes the task that the hon. Gentleman wants us to perform much more difficult. The amendment would oblige the gainers to pay for the losers. That is not a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Henderson: I am pleased that the Minister intervened in my speech because he now appears to be clarifying his earlier remarks.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. On a matter which the Labour party has claimed to be so important, I find it outrageous that only one Labour Member is on the Back Benches.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is reasonably new to the House, but he has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "But what he said is truel Order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, whether or not it is true.

Mr. Henderson: I have always found contributions from Tory Members more helpful before they have their dinner than after it. That has been confirmed again this evening.
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that in any future year when transitional relief is given to businesses, any moneys that are lost to the rating pool because of that transitional relief will be made good by central Government finance and that will be in addition to the aggregate external financing limit. I am assuming that I have been given that commitment by the Minister unless


he again intervenes to correct any misunderstanding. I should be happy to give way to him if he believes that I have misunderstood his position.

Mr. Baldry: I am not sure how often it will be necessary for us to put this on the record. I had hoped that if we had a sensible debate yesterday it could be accepted first time round. As we did not have a sensible debate and this was the only point that the hon. Gentleman could run yesterday, he is obviously having to make something of it again today.
Let me make the point again. Let us suppose that in due course we design, as we may well do, a scheme for some future year which is not fully self-financing. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the amendment would make that more difficult, but let us leave that to one side. Clearly, this would leave a shortfall in local authority revenue, which would need to be made up in one way or another. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for the council tax payer to bear that shortfall. In those circumstances, the Government would anticipate making up that sum. That is what we have said time and time again.
Of course, the most obvious way would indeed be to top up the rating pool by a compensating amount. That is what we have done for the past two years and what we propose to do for 1994–95, but it is not the only conceivable option. For example, we could decide instead to give local government as a whole a larger amount of revenue support grant than it would otherwise receive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course, that would compensate local government by another route, but it would not fall to the cost of either the council tax payer or local government. I am not sure how many more times it will be necessary to make that clear before Labour Members understand the point. I do not think that I can put it more clearly than that. I am sure that any reasonable person who reads Hansard from yesterday and today will see how clearly we have made the point. If the hon. Gentleman takes the matter further, it will demonstrate that this is not a serious debate but merely an attempt to take a bad point further, as was done yesterday.

Mr. Henderson: I assure the House that this is not an attempt to prolong the debate. Indeed, the debate is guillotined—there is no way that we can prolong it beyond 10 o'clock. The only reason why I am sticking to this point is that I want it to be absolutely clear. Yesterday, there was some confusion about the Government's intention. Even a Tory Back Bencher who came in to listen to a small part of the debate was confused.
If the Government are so firm in their response—I welcome their response, which has clarified their position —it would be better if they wrote that into the Bill. I assure the Minister that I will be watching to see what happens next year if transitional relief is granted. In subsequent years, if I am in the same post, I will be watching from this Front Bench. If I am on the Back Benches, I will still be watching.
Councils around the country will be watching to see that there is no camouflage by the Government in an attempt to reduce the amount of the revenue support grant before the announcement on transitional relief is made, only to restore it to what councils would have had to compensate for the relief given to the rating pool. If transitional relief is

granted, I hope that the pool will be topped up by a genuine increase in resources which will be made available to councils by the Exchequer through the Department of the Environment.
My exchange with the Minister demonstrates the importance of having a gap between the Second Reading and the Committee stage so that there is more time for representative organisations to lobby Members of the House and for hon. Members to examine perhaps in more detail the implications of the wording of any amendments that they table. That demonstrates the point made by Labour Members in this debate. Based on the commitment given by the Minister, and based on some of the doubt about the wording of the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read.—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I was taken aback because I knew that Labour Members were anxious to give the Bill a profound scrutiny and I had not expected such rapid progress. Undoubtedly, debate on the technical clauses is proceeding apace on the trains heading out of London tonight.
This is an excellent Bill, which is in time. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has forgotten his notes."' I can manage without notes, thank you very much.
The Bill will enable local authorities to get bills out on time, which has not happened for various reasons in previous years. It is to the benefit of business, particularly small business, and it helps those in areas which are worst affected. The Bill continues the Government's pledge to moderate what was a difficult transition following the re-rating in 1990.
The Bill also looks to the future, and we know that there will be a new rating in 1995. That will be based upon facts which are being collected at the moment, and if that creates turbulence, clearly we will have to tackle it. The Bill gives us the means to do so. When we do that, we will put before the House the measures which we will take. Any shortfall in the financial pool will be made up from public funds. The Government have made that clear, and I have made that clear before.
In the past, the Opposition have been happy to welcome and support the Bill and, in practice, they do not have it in their heart today to oppose it. I think that Opposition Members know that it is right and necessary to create help for small business. It is important that the parties should be seen to be united on the matter, which is of great importance. The measure is opportune and the help is necessary. The small businesses which we are talking about in the centres of towns—particularly in London and the south east, which are the areas worst affected—will welcome the measure. Local authorities will welcome it, as will the business community and its representatives. It is important that the measure be right and in time. We have ensured this and I commend the measure to the House.

Mr. Henderson: Proceedings have moved with such alacrity that hon. Members can forget where they are on the detail of the Bill.
The Opposition are concerned about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with in the House. We are happy that the question of business rates has been dealt with earlier in the parliamentary cycle and we are happy that Second Reading took place in January. We are not happy, and we are extremely worried, that the Government forced through the measure without due concern for the representations which might have been made by concerned parties on the impact of the Bill. All along, the Opposition have been intent on making sure that the democratic processes take place in the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has been in the House for two days on the Bill. He is trying to make his Third Reading speech, and there is a lot of frivolity on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps they would like to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have noticed the frivolity. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Curry: It is very rare that we derive frivolity from the hon. Gentleman. On the few occasions we do, we are most grateful for it.

Mr. Henderson: It is so pleasing to see Government Members with smiling faces for a change. When T see frivolity among Ministers, I begin to wonder who it is that they are talking about who raises laughter and humour among them. It is pleasing to see that there is still lightness among Government Members.
We said yesterday on Second Reading that we wanted to conduct real arguments about the Bill, and that is what we did. It was not the wish of the Opposition that a guillotine motion be moved. The 10 o'clock motion was not moved last night because the Government neither had the confidence of its Back Benchers to proceed with the Bill, nor sufficient confidence in themselves to face the arguments in a session which may have lasted for a few hours.
The way in which the Bill has been dealt with in Committee demonstrates that the Opposition made the arguments expeditiously and moved through the Bill expressing our opposition. We have done so in a way with which the procedures of the House have coped easily. It has taken no more than about two hours to deal with the Committee stage and Third Reading since discussion of the guillotine motion finished.
The matter could have been dealt with yesterday if the Government were intent on dealing with all stages of the Bill in one day. Our position is that it negates many of the democratic processes in the House and in the country to deal with the Bill in one day. But if the Government wanted to deal with the Bill in one day, it would have been possible for that to happen. The reason why it did not happen was the Government's lack of confidence and because they wanted to scupper some of the debate that

might have taken place today on the national health service. They were frightened to come to the House to deal with that matter.
I know that you will want me to dwell on the Bill rather than the Government's fear of the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition support the purpose of the Bill. We recognise that transitional relief needs to be granted to businesses because of the way in which the current structure of business rates has been introduced and the way in which transitional relief has been granted.
Business will judge whether the size of the relief is appropriate in the circumstances this year. Business will be extremely disappointed that it has not had full consultation with the Government on the economic circumstances that it faces and on what relief might have been helpful.
Many of us are suspicious of clause 3 of the Bill. Although the Government confirmed in Committee earlier this evening that if transitional relief were given, the rating pool would be topped up in a real sense, they are still opposed to putting that commitment in the Bill. That demonstrates to the House that the Government will not necessarily increase the aggregate external financial limit to take into account any need to top it up because relief has been given.
The Opposition will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because we want to see business in Britain receive the relief which it believes at least partly helps it in the present difficult economic circumstances. However, democracy in the country and in the House would have been better protected if, through the usual channels, the Government had dealt with the Bill in a sensible, workmanlike way—the way in which the matter has been dealt with in past years.
The Bill is much more complicated than the legislation of the past two years. It deals with structural, not merely financial, issues. That is why the matter needs much wider debate than in past years. It would have been better if the Government had been able to take account of representations that might have been made by organisations throughout the country and by Members of Parliament.

Mr. Betts: The debate has been important because it has allowed us to raise in the House the real fears about the finance of local government and the part that the business rate plays within that. It has allowed hon. Members to draw attention to the fact that, because the business rate has been centralised and because central Government have taken over raising that rate and fixing the poundage, the amount of local finance that is directly under the control of local authorities has been substantially reduced. That has led to the problem of gearing.
The impact on the council tax of any increase in expenditure that a local authority wants to undertake, within the cap limits that the Government lay down, is multiplied several times because the council tax, which is the only part of their revenue in which local authorities have flexibility, is only a small part of the revenue available to local authorities. If the business rate were transferred to local authorities, that situation would be substantially amended and that would be to the benefit of the local authorities, democracy and accountability.
During the debate, we have been able to explore the reasons for the Government's decision to take over control


of the business rate as part of their general approach—taking powers from local authorities and restricting their freedom of operation, including the freedom to provide local services that their communities vote for and want to be provided.
We have had a substantial discussion of the Government's intentions and of whether we can believe and trust ministerial assurances given now that if there are shortfalls in the pool of business rate money, because of transitional arrangements introduced by the Government, they will automatically compensate local authorities for that shortfall and will ensure that council tax payers and the recipients of local services will not be in any way disadvantaged because of the effects of those arrangements.
Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have tried to persuade Ministers to realise that an assurance given now may not be worth anything in two years' time if circumstances or Ministers change. We simply cannot take on trust that that assurance will always be honoured. We have, therefore, invited Ministers to change the legislation to include the word "shall" instead of "may". That seems a very small change.
If Ministers keep telling us that they have no intention other than to compensate local authorities for any loss in the pool because of transitional arrangements, why do they not write that into the legislation? That question has been asked many times, but I have not heard a clear and simple answer. Only a few moments ago, the Under-Secretary of State sought to explain that, as the transitional arrangements were not fixed and could vary from year to year, the legislation could not include a commitment to compensate in a particular way for any losses because of those arrangements. I simply do not accept that and he did not explain why it was the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] No, it was a non sequitur. A Bill could prescribe compensation for local authorities and contain a commitment to compensate while not prescribing the form of transitional arrangements. The two are not linked.
The Under-Secretary did not explain why the fact that the transitional arrangements were not prescribed in the legislation meant that no commitment to compensate could be written into it. However, he also let the cat out of the bag. Throughout the debate, Ministers have implied that compensation will be provided by the Government topping up the pool, as they intend to do in 1994–95 when £90

million will be paid in directly. The Government have given the impression that future compensation will always be provided in that way.
However, the Under-Secretary of State said something else. He said that compensation, to make up any loss in the business rate, might be given by increasing the revenue support grant to local authorities and that that would have no impact on council tax payers or the recipients of council services. He is absolutely wrong, because revenue support grant is paid out under a different system and by different allocations from those of the business rate. The latter is paid on a per capita basis, while the revenue support grant is paid out according to the standard spending assessment system; the two are not the same. If there were another £90 million shortfall in the pool and the Government made it up by compensating local authorities through a £90 million increase in revenue support grant rather than compensating the pool directly, the total impact on local government would be the same, but the impact on each authority would be different. That means of compensation would, therefore, have a consequence, which is what we have been arguing throughout. We want an assurance that that will not happen to be written into the legislation.
Furthermore, when the Government tell us that there is a £90 million shortfall in the pool because of their transitional arrangements but they will not top it up because they have already given that sum of money in the revenue support grant announced in the autumn, how do we know that that is the case? The Government could come along at any time and say that they do not need to top up the pool because they have already included £90 million, or whatever the sum is for that year, in the previously announced revenue support grant.
Frankly, that is not transparent. The Government will be able to claim that they have carried out their commitments as promised, but will merely be pretending that the compensation has been paid. It is difficult to accept ministerial assurances tonight when we know that they could devise a future system that made it unclear whether those assurances had been met.
It would have been much simpler if the Government had accepted, right at the start, the need to include in the Bill a promise always to compensate for any shortfall by topping up the pool. If that had happened, the debate could have been concluded many hours ago. The Government could have got their way, but, equally, local authorities and the recipients of their services could have been assured that future transitional arrangements would not adversely affect their council tax or the services that local people receive.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): This is the fifth occasion on which I have detained the House on the question of entitlements to compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for those with properties alongside the existing designated railway routes to the channel tunnel. I hope that this will be the fifth and last occasion on which I shall do so, which I am sure will be a relief to the House and will be a not inconsiderable relief to myself.
The designated rail routes are for passengers and freight through Kent on the Maidstone East line and the Tonbridge line running up to Waterloo, where the new international terminal has been constructed. In addition, there is a designated freight route going from Tonbridge through Surrey to Redhill and round the south and west of London.
I am raising this issue again tonight for two reasons. First, because it has a real immediacy. We are now some four months away from the opening of the channel tunnel. There is no doubt that when it is opened in May, those with homes alongside the designated freight and passenger routes will suffer considerable deterioration in their living and, in particular, their sleeping environment. Many of those lines are lightly used during the night, if at all. With the gradual build up of channel tunnel traffic, particularly freight traffic during the night, it is possible that individuals will find the channel tunnel international freight trains going past their bedroom windows approximately once every 15 minutes during the night hours. Therefore, we are talking about the real prospect of a considerable deterioration in those people's environments.
The position that they face is unhappily one that will continue for the foreseeable future, because the new high speed line is still years away from construction. Even after that, in accordance with Government plans and statements, the overwhelming proportion of freight will continue to travel on the existing designated channel tunnel rail route to which I have referred. It would be very surprising therefore if there was not some impact on the property values of those homes alongside those designated routes, which is why compensation is now a matter of such immediacy.
I raise this issue for a second and even more crucial reason, because having examined most closely the legal background, I am in no doubt that the legal basis on which Ministers previously made statements about the application of the Land Compensation Act to this issue was incorrect. My first reference point for that opinion is the previous full debate that we had on this matter on 19 June 1991, when I moved what was new clause 16 to the Planning Compensation [Lords] Bill. I endeavoured, along with some of my hon. Friends, and I am glad to say with the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench and members of the Liberal party, to secure new powers to enable compensation to be paid in the circumstances I have outlined.
My right hon. Friend, in responding to that debate, said:
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical

factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 9(7) situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.
As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification tinder existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 345–6.]
My right hon. Friend left the House with a clear view that the Department's legal advice was that there could be no application of injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act to the properties alongside the designated routes to the channel tunnel.
I have harboured some considerable doubts about the validity of that interpretation, and in recent months the local authorities concerned, at my instigation, have sought counsel's opinion on that issue. Counsel has been instructed, and a leading planning and compensation barrister, Mr. Gregory Stone, at Gray's Inn, has furnished an opinion on that point, which I have with me this evening, and from which he has given me his permission to quote.
Mr. Stone is in no doubt that it is going to be possible to claim injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 in the context of the substantial reconstruction and alteration of the existing designated rail routes to the channel tunnel. I shall first put the basis of his legal argument in my own words—no doubt somewhat inadequately—but will then give the House the benefit of the exact quotation from his opinion.
The statement of my right hon. Friend in the debate in June 1991 was in relation to section 9(7) of the Act, which reads as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to a change of use do not include references to the intensification of an existing use.
That reference must be seen against the three heads of claim under which injurious affection can be claimed, which are detailed in section 9(1). Those heads of claim are listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). We can leave aside paragraph (a), because that relates to claims in relation to highways, about which we are not concerned here. Claims under paragraphs (b) and (c) can both apply to railways.
Head of claim (c) reads:
there has been a change of use in respect of any public works other than a highway or aerodrome.
The House will appreciate that the use of the phrase "a change of use" in head of claim (c) effectively makes it impossible, because of the qualification in section 9(7), to make a claim under that head.
However, the critical point is the wording of head of claim (b), which reads:
any public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used".
The critical point is that the phrase "a change of use" does not appear in head of claim (b) and therefore claims under (b) are not qualified by subsection (7) to which the Minister referred in his June 1991 speech.
Now I shall give the House the benefit of Mr. Gregoty Stone's opinion on the crucial point. He summarises succinctly and in proper legal form what I have just said in two key paragraphs of his opinion. He says:


Section 9(7) of the 1973 Act has led to the mistaken view that the intensification of use of existing lines preclude claims for compensation being made. That construction of the law has been stated in debates in Parliament.
However, Section 9(7) of the 1973 Act states only that references in the Section to a change of use are not constituted by intensification of an existing use. That leaves open claims being made under Section 9(1)(b) namely that 'Public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used.' That head of claim has nothing to do with changes of use.
On the basis of that opinion, it would appear to be clear that, under head of claim (b), it would be possible to make claims for injurious affection compensation in relation to the depreciation of property caused by the public works in connection with the designated rail routes to the channel tunnel.
It will not be difficult, in court if necessary, in test cases if necessary, to demonstrate that the types of public works that have been carried out on the designated routes fall firmly within the terms of head of claim (b)—in other words, reconstruction, extension or otherwise altered.
Those of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who know in detail what has gone on on the designated routes—the electrification, the alteration of the track, the removal of sharp gradient bends, the resignalling, the altering of bridges, the construction of loop lines—the alterations that have gone on the length and breadth of the track, quite apart from the construction of a new international terminal at Waterloo and the extension of the line at Cheriton under the channel on to the continental railway system, will know that any barrister will have the utmost ease in demonstrating that the scale of the works that have been carried out is fully within the ambit of head of claim (b).

Sir Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficult travelling conditions that our constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) have experienced during the past two years on the Kent coast lines, which have led to extreme unreliability, have been part and parcel of the massive reconstruction of points, upgrading of traffic and all the rest? The level of performance that has been achieved on the Kent coast lines is proof that an essentially brand new line has been built.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend's point is entirely correct. The huge dislocation from which our constituents have suffered, including being bussed between stations, reflects the magnitude of the reconstruction and alteration work on the designated routes.
A very different legal construction has quite properly been put on the key question of the application of the Land Compensation Act to those who have the misfortune to live alongside the designated routes. I am glad to say that British Rail now seems to have conceded in principle that compensation may be payable. Having given every impression, rather like the Department of Transport until quite recently, that no compensation would be payable, BR now appears to have taken fresh legal advice and to be back-tracking on the issue.
I have been in correspondence with the chairman of British Rail, urging him to advise members of the public on their legal rights—rights given to them by this House. Just before Christmas, I received from Sir Bob Reid a copy of

a new leaflet that BR has produced in which it endeavours to set out its response to the issue of compensation for those alongside the existing routes.
Sir Bob was kind enough to write to me and thank me for suggesting that BR produce such a leaflet. When I read the leaflet, however, I was not the least bit enthusiastic about its contents. It appears to me that BR does not start from the standpoint of advising people on their legal rights; it seems much more concerned with dissuading them from seeking compensation and with throwing a wet blanket over everyone who might be considering seeking compensation from British Rail.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, on behalf of my constituents and many other people in Kent, I entirely agree with all his points? His argument takes us forward considerably, and I am especially glad to hear him focus on this unsatisfactory leaflet from British Rail.

Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I should like to develop the point a little more, to show just how unsatisfactory the leaflet is.
British Rail highlights only the negatives. For example, in paragraph 5 BR says, in respect of what might constitute a basis for compensation:
Parliament has not defined what constitutes an altered development in the case of a railway, but in British Rail's view such works as the relaying of track would not be a new or altered development leading to a successful claim for compensation, just as resurfacing a road does not qualify.
The House might reasonably expect that, having stated what, in its view, does not qualify for compensation, BR might then go on to say what would qualify. On that point the leaflet is wholly silent—there is no reference to the hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure on reconstructing the line and on upgrading it to make it suitable for channel tunnel trains. There is not a mention of all the alteration, reconstruction and extension that provide the basis for the head of compensation.
In paragraph 6 of the leaflet, BR refers to the need for the householder to demonstrate that his house has been affected by the physical effects of the new public works in a way that depreciates the value of the property. One might have expected British Rail to try to help householders by setting out the physical effects that Parliament had in mind when using that expression. Not a bit of it. The BR leaflet is wholly silent on the point, even though, in the Land Compensation Act, the physical factors are set out well in section 1(2): noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting—they are all there in the legislation. Again, the leaflet remains silent. Perhaps the fact that we received a leaflet at all constitutes a success, but it is a very unsatisfactory leaflet, designed to put people off and give them the least possible encouragement to take advantage of their legal rights.
I urge my right hon. Friend to do two things. First, I know that he is the last person who would want a statement about the legal position, which, in my view, is unsustainable to remain on the record. I hope that, when he has had time to reflect on what I have said, to read Hansard and to consult his legal advisers, he will return to the House and make a clear statement about the legal position relating to properties along the designated routes, against the background of the Land Compensation Act. I am sure that


he will want to do that, rather than allowing what he said on 19 June 1991 to stand as the Government's sole observation on the legal aspects of the matter.
Secondly, I ask my right hon. Friend to instruct British Rail to return its first cockshy at a leaflet to the drawing board, and to produce a document that sets out compensation rights fairly and properly. The current leaflet is a pitiful piece of paper. We are talking about the legal rights provided by existing legislation passed by Parliament; it is incumbent on what is still a nationalised industry, answerable to a Government Department, to advise people fully and frankly about their rights. I urge my right hon. Friend to speak firmly to British Rail, and make it issue proper advice.
If those two things are done, we will have gone a long way towards providing an equitable base on which to deal with this important issue, which directly affects a number of properties. Those properties will certainly be affected seriously once the channel tunnel trains start to run. If we take such action, we shall have properly discharged our responsibilities to our constituents.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): rose—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has given the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) permission to speak.

Mr. Mackinlay: I asked the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for permission to speak, having been given an unexpected opportunity to raise the similar anxieties of my constituents about the blight that the proposed route will cause, and the need for compensation. I agree with everything that he has said: he clearly speaks for all hon. Members whose constituents live on the route. I am grateful to him for relaying to us the detailed opinion given to him by Mr. Gregory Stone, which we shall all want to study thoroughly.
I shall not delay the House too long, because I spoke about the matter in an Adjournment debate on 2 April 1993. However, I hope that the Minister will clarify a couple of points relating to compensation, and to the procedure whereby the House of Commons will give its mandate for the route. The procedure raises the issue of delay, which of course has an effect on blight, which in turn affects compensation.
When I raised the issue in the House on 2 April 1993, the Minister for Transport in London clearly said that the issue would be dealt with as a hybrid Bill. There seems to be some confusion about that, so I should be grateful if the Minister for Public Transport would confirm that it will indeed be dealt with in a hybrid Bill.
If that is so, is it not a fact that the House will not be able to give the Bill a Second Reading until 1995? That is my understanding, as the Wharncliffe rules would apparently apply. By the time we had gone through all the preliminary procedures, the House would not be able to deal with the issue until then, which would compound the blight and anxiety of those who live along the line of route. We need to be told exactly what the ground rules and the procedure will be.
In preparation for my comments this evening, I referred to the Adjournment debate secured on 29 October by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). On that occasion, the Minister for Public Transport said:
On the question of surface sections of the route, property seriously affected during construction and operation of the rail link, not just that actually required permanently or temporarily, may also be included within the zone safeguarded once the final route has been announced."—[Official Report, 29 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 1160.]
In a few weeks, or perhaps days, the Minister will announce the line of route. If it is to be safeguarded, he must say whether constituents who live near it will be able to receive some form of immediate compensation. I believe that blight already exists, but once the route is announced it will certainly increase immediately and become fixed. It would be grossly unfair to wait until Second Reading or Royal Assent to make compensation available.
One other issue needs clarification. In The Daily Telegraph of 4 January, I noticed a surprising but nevertheless comprehensive report on a proposal by Central Railways to produce an alternative link route from the midlands, skirting the west of London, passing through central London and leading to the channel tunnel, via, I believe, Croydon, using track parallel to existing routes and tracks ripped up as a result of the Beeching cuts. The report seemed to say that the idea was being given credence by the Department of Transport. I have no objection to that, but one must ask, where is it going to end?
The report suggested that there was private funding, which might mean that compensation would be available sooner to anyone affected by this line of route and that the alternative route might have less impact in terms of property blight. I am surprised that there has been no further utterance from the Department of Transport about that report, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to rectify that.
I must acknowledge that the Minister of State has kindly agreed to meet me, representatives of my local authority and the residents involved next week. I therefore do not want to go over old or bitter ground now, because that would not be fair to the House or to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, who has given us the opportunity to debate this issue tonight. Can we be told, however, whether there will be a hybrid Bill? Is it the case that the House will not be able to begin to deal with this issue until 1995? If that is so, Royal Assent could clearly be as far away as 1997 or 1998.
Once the Minister has announced the protected line of route, will compensation be immediately available to people whose property falls within it? Is Central Railways' proposal under serious consideration, and if so, how shall we decide between these two routes, bearing in mind the procedures for dealing with the matter in the House?

Sir Keith Speed: I shall be brief.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on initiating the debate. He has done a great service to people in Kent, Essex and London who will be affected by the route.
My right hon. Friend the Minister knows more about this matter than probably any Member apart from those with constituency interests. I pay tribute to him for his courtesy, patience and detailed knowledge in acquainting himself with the facts. He has been sympathetic to our representations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing was right about British Rail's leaflet. We live in the age of the citizens charter, which has been one of the Government's better initiatives in recent months. Under the passengers charter, we are now aware of the reliability and punctuality of services and the fact that, if they fall below a certain level, compensation is payable as of right.
What is Missing is a charter for those who are affected by the proposed channel tunnel developments. That lacuna must be filled quickly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, a proper and detailed pamphlet should be made available to those who will be affected for the next 10 years along existing lines, with trains going via Maidstone or Tonbridge from the channel tunnel into Waterloo, and after that by the construction of the new high-speed rail link.
British Rail and the Government could be much more positive. British Rail and, as privatisation proceeds, Railtrack should make positive proposals to ensure that account is taken of the interests of people who are not legally qualified and who are not chartered surveyors, but who know that it is difficult to sell their homes and that they will suffer from the increase in noise on the new railway.
What has happened on lines from London down to Folkestone via Maidstone and Tonbridge is rather like what happens when a trunk road is upgraded to a motorway. In that light, I hope that the Minister will be positive and will ask the British Railways Board, while we still have one, to be as positive as the excellent citizens charter.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: May I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) to our right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on his positive approach? As I said in an intervention, his specific focus on the legal aspect of the matter has taken us a long way forward. We look for action from British Rail and from my right hon. Friend the Minister on the issue.
Three rail lines run through my constituency that are directly affected by these changes. A number of my constituents are extremely worried because they are unable to sell their homes. The problem will continue over the next few years and, once the lines are used more intensively, long into the future for those who wish to move because of retirement or a change of job.
We all appreciate the frightening situation, and the sleepless nights that people suffer, when their major asset is damaged as deeply as those properties are. It seems to me that, in all equity, quite apart from the compelling legal arguments, it is essential that the House, and the Government that I support, should appreciate the problem, alleviate the difficulties for the individual families affected, and give them the option of finding a way through.
The intensification of use will be of benefit to the whole country, enabling us to be properly linked with the European Community. That is a benefit for Britain, but the result of it is a major disbenefit —

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Wolfson: The individuals concerned suffer a major disbenefit affecting the personal capital asset of their home as a result of a benefit that will accrue to the whole country. It is surely not unreasonable that compensation should be available to those individuals.
I am afraid that the record of compensation in Britain for people whose property has been compulsorily purchased or adversely affected by development is not good. We are mean in providing money for people. That has been true for many years; I have raised the issue many times in the House, and did so in Committee when we were airing the issues on the original channel tunnel legislation. All the evidence suggests that, if we were more generous, public works would be finished faster, and less delay would be caused by objections.
In individual instances, people ask for reasonable protection against the adverse effects of increased use of the lines, such as noise and vibration. Where such protection cannot do the job and the house remains blighted, with its capital value heavily damaged so that it cannot be sold, or can be sold only at a knockdown price, I should feel a great deal more comfortable if people could claim compensation, and British Rail gave them the necessary information to do so. More importantly, the people affected would feel more comfortable, too. Although we return to this issue often, and make such slow progress in resolving it, I hope that tonight we shall see a real move forward.
I emphasise again why we are so concerned and why there is a particular problem with the Kent lines. At least two of the lines in my constituency now have very little traffic, and until recently have had minimal traffic at night, whereas the freight trains will be heavy and noisy, and will roll at night.
That situation is exactly comparable to the problems that people who live near airports suffer—and we have introduced strict controls on night flying. The noise of a railway line is similar to that experienced as an aeroplane takes off or lands, with quiet periods in between. That is more disturbing than the continuous rumble of motorway traffic, yet we are doing nothing for people who face that problem. I have been into people's homes, and they have explained the situation. They do not make that up; it is real, and it is our duty to do something about it.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for introducing this subject yet again. He has done a service in allowing us to focus our minds again on the important issue before us, and some progress has been made.
I have no problem at all in accepting the requests that my right hon. Friend has made of the Government: to consider carefully the legal advice which he has received, commissioned by the local authorities, for the Government to reflect with their own legal advisers and, in consultation with British Rail, accepting what my right hon. Friend has laid before the House. That will be done: it will be done promptly and thoroughly.
I also accept the second part of the request, that I should return to the House as promptly as possible with a clarification of the issues. I have absolutely no hesitation


whatever in accepting what my right hon. Friend has said. If he studies the record, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, where there is clear and powerful argument—for example, about the channel tunnel route and the control of fares in the privatised railway, a debate in which my right hon. Friend participated—he will accept that the Government are not unresponsive. Where clear arguments are marshalled and where there is a case to be answered, the Government are not reticent in answering properly and fairly.
Before dealing with the substance of the debate, I shall respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), and then deal specifically with the Land Compensation Act 1973.
We shall shortly be making an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link route that it is proposed to safeguard. Of course, that will be only the route chosen for the preparation of the Bill and the seeking of planning permission. That announcement will come at the end of a long, thorough period of consultation—unprecedented for the construction of a new railway line, and, dare I say it, for a new road.
I can confirm that, once the route is safeguarded—the act of safeguarding will follow shortly after the announcement of the route, as there are some legal steps to be taken to safeguard it—a purchase scheme will apply to those houses that will be directly affected by the route. That scheme will affect those houses which will have to be acquired—if not compulsorily, then purchased voluntarily —and those houses which will be substantially affected by construction. There will be a scheme, and Union Railways is funding it so that it is commenced promptly. That is only equitable and fair.
The hon. Member for Thurrock asked me whether it will be a hybrid Bill. It will be. Once an announcement is made of the route, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will ensure that preparations begin promptly to prepare the Bill. We have said that we hope that the Bill will be ready at the commencement of the next Session. However, the timing of its introduction depends not on myself or the Secretary of State for Transport, but on collective consideration by the Government. We have always said that we want the private sector to comment on the Bill. We have made it plain that that does not entail reopening a safeguarded route.
With regard to the Central Railways group, the newspaper to which the hon. Member for Thurrock referred quoted me incorrectly. The Department of Transport does not endorse or promote or support any individual proposition. If the hon. Gentleman has the chance to read the information document which is being circulated in the City to raise money by that group, he will realise that we have issued an even-handed comment on the proposal and indicated the procedures that it must go through before construction can start.
The points raised about the channel tunnel rail link by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing are well founded. I am attracted to the idea of an appropriate stage to ensure that, in plain English, we can convey to those who will be affected by the new route what their rights will be and how they will be affected. For example, there are rights under the voluntary purchase scheme, to which I have just referred, there are blight provisions in the law, compulsory purchase rights., the insulation of properties and availability of compensation,

because the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 apply to the construction of a new railway line. The suggestion is valuable, and I shall certainly reflect on it.
The main issue concerns the use of the existing railway lines. I am well aware of the problems of those whose properties abut the line. It is not just physical abutment: in the open countryside of Kent and Surrey, although not necessarily in London, the impact of the noise will be felt over a considerable distance. No one denies that. I have gone to listen at night to the effects of the existing passenger trains. No one doubts their effect, let alone that of the freight trains that are to run.
It is important for Ministers and, indeed, officials at the Department of Transport continually to put themselves in the place of a householder whose property will be affected. This is a direct personal matter. Sometimes it can become the most important issue in a person's life and in the affairs of a household.
In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), the Government must proceed with close adherence to the principles of equity, even-handedness, prudence and clarity. I hope that we shall be able to sustain that endeavour in what we seek to achieve over the coming years in relation to the existing lines and the new routes.
Perhaps I could remind the House of what is proposed for this year. By the end of the year, it is envisaged that there will be up to 11 trains in both directions using existing railway lines on their way from Wembley, through which the freight trains will have to pass, to the channel tunnel. That is a maximum of 22 trains per day. They will use either the Maidstone East line or the Tonbridge line.
At night—I am defining night as between 11 pm and 7 am—it is estimated that there will be about five trains in total using the Tonbridge line and four the Maidstone East line. I am attempting not to minimise the problem but to put the matter on the record. On present estimates, it will not be until the year 2005 that the capacity of the tunnel for 35 freight trains a day will be utilised. Of course, the estimate may well change.
We accept my right hon. Friend's understanding and interpretation of the Land Compensation Act 1973. He has drawn attention to the fact that the key provision is section 9(1)(b). His comments and counsel's opinion, which he has read into the record, will be studied carefully. Now that the debate has focused properly and narrowly on this particular issue, it will receive Ministers' close attention.
In past debates, my right hon. Friend has raised the issue of giving the Secretary of State a per Missive power. As I recall it, that was the subject of the debate in June 1991. A separate issue concerned introducing an administrative, non-statutory scheme. Now the debate is focused on the existing law and the protection afforded under it to individuals.
British Rail and the Department acknowledge that, under section 9(1)(b), it is open to individuals who believe that they are affected to apply for compensation. That is not the issue, because I certainly accept that as a point of principle. The question is to what extent that applies. There is a question of the information provided to individuals; the leaflet now provided by British Rail was cited. I do not wish to comment on the legal interpretation of the law tonight, and my right hon. Friend was kind enough to invite me to reflect on that, which I shall do.
In the leaflet cited, claims under section 9(1)(b)—I assume that that is the correct reference—prior to 1 April


1994 should be made to the British Rail Property Board and after that to Railtrack. That is what the document says. It must be acknowledged that the courts ultimately will interpret the legislation. But there is more to that than merely the Lands Tribunal interpreting a specific provision. British Rail has sought to make a clearer statement of the position, and I shall take on board the criticisms and comments made.
I shall conclude by concentrating on the mitigation measures that have been undertaken. I understand that my right hon. Friend has always concentrated on the property acquisition and compensation for injurious affection issues, rather than the mitigation measures. Nevertheless, they are important.
British Rail has introduced continuously welded rail, which is certainly more environmentally friendly. It has ordered class 92 electric locomotives to haul the freight on existing rail lines. The locomotives are subject to some delay, because the manufacturers have run into problems. I am not blaming the manufacturers. It is a fact that class 92 locomotives will not be running when the channel tunnel opens for freight. Quieter freight wagons will also be used.
The noise barriers which I have looked at will make some difference. Fifty barriers are proposed-30 in Kent, five in Surrey and 15 in Bromley. Those barriers are being erected under arrangements whereby British Rail and the local authority concerned both plan and then finance the construction of them. As for the local authorities concerned, the Department of Transport has provided supplementary credit approval for the local authority share of that programme.
The barriers, which are 2m high, are effective. I have listened to the difference in noise, and the barriers reduce the noise by up to half. It is common practice in France and West Germany, and in other countries, to have noise barriers not only for passenger train noise mitigation but for freight mitigation. That is the situation as far as the barriers are concerned. I hope that other boroughs which are affected will take up the offer made by British Rail to co-operate jointly in the installation of such barriers.

Mr. Roger Sims: I know that my constituents in that part of Bromley to which my right hon. Friend referred will be extremely pleased to hear what he has said. I must declare an interest, in that the line runs only a few yards from my house. Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the character of the barriers? If they

have a noise-dampening effect, that is ideal, but presumably there is a danger that they may have some intrusive environmental effect. Are we talking about concrete barriers, or about trees? Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more?

Mr. Freeman: The barriers are wooden, and have been appropriately treated. If my hon. Friend or, indeed, any other hon. Members would like to see the Union Railways demonstration barrier at Staplehurst or the barriers erected by rail freight distribution in co-operation with local authorities at other locations—for example, Paddock Wood—we can certainly arrange that.
The barriers are environmentally acceptable, but any barrier is an intrusion. Anyone who has seen the concrete barriers in some continental countries might find them intrusive. Of course, there are ways in which the noise can be mitigated other than by barrier. I have already referred to a number of ways concerning the design of the locomotives, the wagons and the track. Kent county council has a non-statutory programme for insulating isolated properties which are not protected by noise barriers. I welcome that.
In September this year, we hope that it will be possible for rail freight distribution to demonstrate to all Members of Parliament who have constituents whose properties are affected that trains can be run along the route in Kent and Surrey, and in London boroughs, with the new class 92 locomotives and the full weight of the freight wagons. I will ensure that invitations are sent to all those with constituencies that are affected. We will continue to monitor the noise effects of the introduction of the new freight services when they begin to run.
There have been predictions of the noise impact, but it is important to measure the reality against the predictions, and the programme will continue. I re-read both debates, which were fraught and difficult, the first in June 1991 and the second, which I think was in July of the same year. I said at that time that the matter would not go away, and that it would require the attention not only of the Government but of the rail operators until a sensible conclusion was reached.
I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has said tonight will be helpful. It will carry the debate on a stage, and it will focus the minds of those in my Department. Above all, it will focus my mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.